BUSINESS BEFORE QUESTIONS

London Local Authorities and Transport for London (No. 2) Bill [Lords] (By Order)

Consideration of Bill, as amended, opposed and deferred until Tuesday 26 February (Standing Order No. 20).

City of London (Various Powers) Bill [Lords] (By Order)
	 — 
	Humber Bridge Bill (By Order)

Second Readings opposed and deferred until Tuesday 26 February at Four o’clock (Standing Order No. 20).

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

The Deputy Prime Minister was asked—

New Peers

David Hanson: What estimate he has made of the cost of implementing the section of the coalition agreement on the creation of new peers.

Tom Greatrex: What his policy is on the creation of new peers.

Nicholas Clegg: As stated in the programme for government, appointments will be made to the House of Lords with the objective of creating a second Chamber that reflects the share of the vote secured by the political parties at the last general election. Any costs associated with appointing new Members will be in line with the current system. The responsibility for increasing the size of the House of Lords must, of course, lie with those who rejected the opportunity to move to a smaller, more legitimate House.

David Hanson: In May 2010, there were 735 peers, whereas as of yesterday there were 810. The Deputy Prime Minister has just indicated that he still wishes to maintain the coalition agreement proposal to increase the number of peers to reflect the votes at the previous general election. How many more peers does he intend to appoint? Will that include United Kingdom Independence party peers and, potentially, even British National party peers, which I would certainly oppose?

Nicholas Clegg: As I have said before, we intend to do what the programme for government sets out; we will be making appointments with the objective of creating a second Chamber that reflects the share of the vote of the political parties represented in this House. But we had a proposal before us—we all know what happened—to make the House of Lords both smaller and more legitimate, and it did not make progress.

Tom Greatrex: The previous Government were in a minority in the other place, whereas this Government have a de facto majority of 68 there. Given that they have suffered 64 defeats and counting in the other place, would the Deputy Prime Minister not be better served by trying to improve the quality of the legislation that he proposes, rather than packing the other place with more and more client peers? We would get better laws as a result.

Nicholas Clegg: As a matter of fact, there are more Labour peers than peers of any other party in the House of Lords. Under the last Labour Government, 173 Labour peers were created—that was just under half the total. That is not a record of which the Labour party should be proud.

Peter Bone: With all due respect to the Deputy Prime Minister, he is talking absolute tosh. The vote on the Second Reading of the House of Lords Reform Bill got the biggest parliamentary majority of this Parliament. It was because he did not want to give the Bill full scrutiny in this House that he did not proceed; it was his decision, was it not, to abandon the Bill?

Nicholas Clegg: No, I think the hon. Gentleman is reinventing history. The decision was taken not to proceed with the timetable motion and that was why the Bill did not proceed. He knows the precise reasons why that decision was taken.

Julian Huppert: Given that under the Labour Government 391 peers were created—and selected, in many cases—by the then Prime Ministers, Tony Blair and the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), can my right hon. Friend think of any reasons why the Opposition want to keep the House of Lords frozen the way they left it, rather than allowing it to reflect how the country voted?

Nicholas Clegg: My hon. Friend asks a good question. Given Labour’s record in packing the House of Lords for political advantage, it is extraordinary that Labour Members should now seek to lecture others about the reform of the other place, which they baulked at delivering when they had the opportunity to do so.

Angus MacNeil: If a party currently in government were to get annihilated at a general election, should it then keep its peers in the House of Lords, as the numbers would not then be reflective of the position in the House of Commons?

Nicholas Clegg: The only thing that is going to be annihilated is the argument for independence for Scotland, which is gaining no currency among the
	people of Scotland, because the vast majority of people in Scotland and elsewhere want to keep the United Kingdom together.

Devolution of Power

Roger Williams: What recent steps he has taken to devolve power away from Westminster and Whitehall.

Nicholas Clegg: We are devolving power to the most appropriate level through local enterprise partnerships, local government finance reforms, giving local authorities a general power of competence, and city deals. We delivered a referendum in Wales, which resulted in the Assembly assuming primary law-making powers in all 20 devolved policy areas, and we established the Silk commission, which continues its work to review the present financial and constitutional arrangements in Wales. In addition, the UK and Scottish Governments are working together to ensure the smooth implementation of the Scotland Act 2012, which represents the greatest devolution of fiscal powers from London in 300 years.

Roger Williams: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. In its recently published and much-applauded report, the Silk commission made several recommendations, including giving the Welsh Assembly Government powers to raise taxation and so making it more accountable to the people of Wales. When will the Government introduce legislation to enable those aspirations to be achieved?

Nicholas Clegg: As my hon. Friend may know, we are carefully studying the recommendations in the part I report from the Silk commission. We hope to provide our considered response in spring this year, and only at that point will we be able to set out what legislative plans might flow from it. Personally, I strongly support the principle of further fiscal devolution, as reflected in the Silk commission report.

Clive Betts: Assuming that the Deputy Prime Minister does not support the creation of an English parliament or elected regional assemblies, does he accept that if devolution in England is to work, local authorities have to be at the heart of the process and not bypassed as the Secretary of State for Education wants? Will he therefore look closely at the proposals from the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee to put the relationships between central and local government on a proper constitutional footing?

Nicholas Clegg: I have a lot of sympathy with some of the assertions made in that excellent report from the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee—namely, that at a time when the “Whitehall state” will be cash-strapped for a prolonged period, it is essential that we give local communities and local authorities greater freedom, including the financial freedom to decide how money is raised and spent. That seems to me the best way to square the circle and to ensure that local growth and local economic innovation continue.

Recall of Honourable Members

Stephen McCabe: What recent progress he has made on a policy on recall of hon. Members.

Chloe Smith: The Government have confirmed that we remain committed to establishing a recall mechanism. We are now taking proper time to consider the relevant Select Committee’s recommendations.

Stephen McCabe: I was rather thrown by that reply. What I want to know is whether recall will commence after allegations are well established and the scandal is public, or at the point when there is an admission or finding of guilt. If the latter, how does that differ substantially from what already happens?

Chloe Smith: As I think the hon. Gentleman knows—if not and if confusion persists, I am happy to take it up with him outside the Chamber—the coalition put forward a set of proposals that included a double set of conditions: first, that the Member should have been found to have engaged in serious wrongdoing; and secondly, that at least 10% of constituents should have signed a petition calling for the recall. In our proposals, the first of those conditions contained two triggers. It is now for the House and the Government to work together to make sure that that works. We must be sure not to trespass on the House’s exclusive cognisance—I think the hon. Gentleman knows that and of course you do, Mr Speaker —and I look forward to ensuring that the process is transparent, robust and fair.

Zac Goldsmith: Given that this is the one meaningful political reform the coalition is likely to be able to deliver, please will the Minister explain the delay? It is a simple matter and I have done the work for her by producing a Bill, which is sitting there in the books. Can she guarantee that the reform will go through before the next election?

Chloe Smith: Like you, Mr Speaker, I am a great respecter of Parliament, so I suspect that I should not guarantee anything, but my intention is to bring forward proposals on which I look forward to working with my hon. Friend and all others who take an interest. As I said, the process ought to be transparent, robust and fair, and I look forward to making sure that it meets that quality mark.

Electoral Register

Yvonne Fovargue: What assessment he has made of the most effective ways of ensuring the completeness and accuracy of the electoral register.

Chloe Smith: The Government are committed to doing all they can to maximise registration. We have published detailed research, which has informed our plans to use data-matching, targeted engagement with under-registered groups, and new technology to modernise the system as we go into individual electoral registration, to make it as convenient as possible for people to register to vote.

Yvonne Fovargue: Wigan has had great success in increasing the number of people registered to vote. However, there are still many more people recorded in the census than in the comparable electoral register. Does the Minister therefore agree that drawing the parliamentary boundaries on the basis of census data is a much fairer way of achieving equal constituencies?

Chloe Smith: In short, the census data come out only once every 10 years, which is rather a drawback. There are a number of other differences as well, which suggests that the electoral register is a better source to use.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend and the House will be aware that only 23,000 out of 4.4 million British citizens living abroad are registered to vote. This is a huge disfranchisement of British citizens. Can my hon. Friend say any more about the committee that may be set up as a result of discussions in the other place on the Electoral Registration and Administration Bill?

Chloe Smith: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that there is a great mismatch between the number eligible to vote and the number who are registered to vote. We all have a duty to seek to get those numbers up, as we do in the context of any category of voter. I look to all the organisations involved in that effort, including the Electoral Commission, political parties and many more, to seek to encourage registration to vote both here and overseas. My hon. Friend will know well that noble Lords in the other place are taking a great interest in this, and I wish a cross-party inquiry all positive results.

William McCrea: Recently an independent watchdog body expressed concern about the accuracy and completeness of the register in Northern Ireland, 20% of which could be inaccurate. As this has serious implications for our democracy, has the Minister been in contact with the chief electoral officer in Northern Ireland to find out how that happened and what lessons can therefore be learned concerning the register here?

Chloe Smith: There are indeed many helpful lessons to be learned from the experience in Northern Ireland. The Electoral Commission notes that many of the key lessons from the experience of Northern Ireland have already been addressed by the principles included in what is now the Electoral Registration and Administration Act 2013.

Wayne David: The Government have said that the official date for the implementation of individual electoral registration is to be December 2016, yet they have also said that they want to bring forward IER by one year. Why are the Government facing both ways on the issue?

Chloe Smith: It is clear from comments that I have made at the Dispatch Box and that our noble Friends have made in another place that the Government’s implementation plan remains firmly committed to 2015 as the date for transition to an IER-only register. Amendments made during the Bill’s passage through Parliament provide a safeguard that extends the final point for transition to an IER-only register to December 2016. Those amendments, however, do not alter our aim to deliver that register in December 2015. They simply add
	a safeguard so that Parliament has a say, but I do not expect Parliament to have to make that call because I expect our transition plan to be robust.

Political and Constitutional Reform

Toby Perkins: What the Government’s political and constitutional reform priorities are up to 2015.

Nicholas Clegg: The Government continue to work on political and constitutional reform, particularly in support of the wider priority of rescuing, repairing and reforming the British economy. The process of devolution and decentralisation, including the second wave of city deals, is central to this. Work also continues on individual registration, party funding, recall and lobbying reform.

Toby Perkins: That sounded okay, but we all know that all the big reforms that the Deputy Prime Minister had planned have broadly failed. Across our country numerous public servants with far busier in-trays than the Deputy Prime Minister have been laid off. In the interests of savings to the economy, is it not about time to mothball his Department until it has something significant to bring to us in terms of constitutional reform and that has some prospect of being delivered before 2015?

Nicholas Clegg: I do not accept that there is no link between constitutional reform and rebuilding the shattered British economy left in such a parlous state by the hon. Gentleman’s party. The key to that is in the answers to some of the earlier questions. If we are to rejuvenate the British economy, we must breathe life back into our local communities by letting go some of the powers in Whitehall and embarking on an ambitious programme of economic and political decentralisation, the likes of which the Labour party never did in 13 years of government.

Stephen Barclay: On the subject of constitutional reform, the Deputy Prime Minister appears to be breaching the Government’s own recruitment freeze, with 19 new policy advisers and 30 support staff recently advertised at a cost of more than £1 million, for roles including constitutional reform. Can he confirm that constitutional reform is an urgent front-line need, as defined by the Cabinet Office, or is he simply in urgent need of new ideas?

Nicholas Clegg: As I said earlier, we will continue to deliver the commitments that we made in the coalition agreement. My hon. Friend should not lightly turn his nose up at the idea of city deals that are giving unprecedented new economic and political powers to create jobs and economic opportunities across the country. Those are a good thing and we are dedicated to delivering them.

Sadiq Khan: Labour Members are extremely proud of the Human Rights Act, which has been used to protect the rights of the vulnerable in residential care homes and those of an Asperger’s sufferer who was to have been extradited to America, and it has given rights to victims of crime and much more.
	To be fair to the Deputy Prime Minister and his party, they have been consistent in their support for the Human Rights Act. Now that the work of the Bill of Rights commission has come to an end, will the Deputy Prime Minister confirm that no work will be done by his Department, or any other Government Department, towards amending or repealing the Human Rights Act during this term of Parliament?

Nicholas Clegg: As the right hon. Gentleman will know, the Commission on a Bill of Rights reported to me and the Secretary of State for Justice. Actually, quite a lot of good work was done on the reform of the European Court of Human rights—the so-called Brighton agenda, which we are pursuing across the coalition.
	However, the right hon. Gentleman is right to acknowledge that there is a difference of opinion between those of us who believe that the basic rights and responsibilities offered to every British citizen in the European convention, as reflected in British law in the Human Rights Act, should be a baseline of protection for everybody, and others who wish to see that changed. That disagreement was openly, and in a perfectly grown-up way, reflected in the conclusions of the commission.

Christopher Chope: Will my right hon. Friend make it a priority to introduce transparency into collective ministerial responsibility, which seems to be being set aside without any proper accountability to the public or the House?

Nicholas Clegg: As the hon. Gentleman and I have discussed before, collective responsibility prevails where there is a collective agreement and a collective decision on which collective responsibility is based. It is not easy, and certainly not possible to enforce collective responsibility in the absence of a collective decision taken first.

Topical Questions

Hugh Bayley: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Nicholas Clegg: As Deputy Prime Minister, I support the Prime Minister on the full range of Government policy and initiatives. Within Government, I take special responsibility for the Government’s programme of political and constitutional reform.

Hugh Bayley: I am obliged to the Deputy Prime Minister. I read his speech last week about rewarding work. Three days before he made it, The Independent reported that
	“the Government’s figures revealed that child poverty would increase by 200,000 as a result of the”
	1% cap on benefit rises. The Liberal Democrat Minister of State at the Department for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Steve Webb), confirmed in a parliamentary answer that “around 50%” of those 200,000
	“will be in families with at least one person in employment.”—[Official Report, 30 January 2013; Vol. 557, c. 858W.]
	What are the Government going to do to make sure that work is a pathway out of poverty?

Nicholas Clegg: The main thing is to make sure that work always pays. That is why we are introducing much-needed reforms, which were ducked by the previous Administration, to the benefits system. We have introduced universal credit, which means that even if someone works for only a few hours a week, it always pays to do so. In that way, we get rid of some of the disincentives to work, such as the 16-hour rule in the benefits system, at the same time making sure that when someone works, even on low pay, they keep more of their money. On this side of the House, we are immensely proud that, as of April, because of the lifting of the point at which income tax is paid, we will be taking 2 million people on low pay out of paying any income tax at all.

Harriett Baldwin: We heard earlier that the Deputy Prime Minister is a passionate supporter of devolution and localism. If the West Lothian commission, which reports in the near future, recommends that the House should consider English-only legislation with English-only votes, will he back it?

Nicholas Clegg: I am not going to start declaring how we will respond to a report that has not yet concluded, but of course we will look at the recommendations of the McKay commission with an open mind. As my hon. Friend will know, the essay question, as it were, that has been set for the McKay commission is how to reflect the long-standing, perennial problem of the West Lothian question here in the workings of the House. We look forward to seeing what recommendations the commission delivers.

Harriet Harman: The bedroom tax is going to hit people all around the country. It is bad enough in my borough of Southwark, but even worse in the Deputy Prime Minister’s city of Sheffield, where 5,027 people will be hit. This is not a policy to tackle under-occupation because these people cannot move, and they have no choice but to pay. That is why it is called the bedroom tax. People only get housing benefit if they are on a low income. Will he admit to the House that this is deeply unfair and will make people on low incomes worse off?

Nicholas Clegg: The problem that the right hon. and learned Lady cannot duck is that 1.8 million households are waiting to get on to social housing provision and 1 million bedrooms are standing empty. It does not make sense to have a benefits system that continues to support this mismatch between people needing places to live and empty bedrooms, and that is what we are trying to address. As with so many things in the reform of welfare, why were there no reforms of any meaningful description under Labour yet now Labour Members baulk at every single tough decision that we must take?

Harriet Harman: This policy will not address the problem of under-occupation unless there are places for people to move to. It is the saving of public money by making people on low incomes worse off. Is not what the Deputy Prime Minister just said exactly the same as what the Tory Prime Minister said from that Dispatch Box last week? They might be two separate parties, but for the families they are penalising with the bedroom tax, they are exactly the same.

Nicholas Clegg: The right hon. and learned Lady referred to what is going on in Sheffield. In Sheffield, a Labour council is shamefully cutting people’s libraries while paying half a million pounds to employ trade union officials in the town hall and £2 million to refurbish its meeting rooms. What does that tell us about Labour priorities?

Jeremy Lefroy: The Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent city deal is expected to create 31,000 jobs over 10 years. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this represents a once-in-a-generation opportunity to bring growth to my constituents and those across Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent?

Nicholas Clegg: As my hon. Friend will know, we are in the final stages of announcing the next wave of city deals. I very much agree with him. The city deals that we have already signed and launched are proving to be very valuable for the creation of jobs and prosperity in our local areas. In Sheffield alone, the scheme is worth about half a billion pounds to the people of the city. That represents a fantastic boost for job creation in communities up and down the country.

Catherine McKinnell: I have been interested to see local Liberal Democrats in Newcastle campaigning to save public services put at risk by the Government’s disproportionate and unfair funding settlement for Newcastle city council. Will the Deputy Prime Minister therefore confirm that his party will be voting against the local government settlement Bill tomorrow? Otherwise his party and councillors will end up looking extremely opportunistic.

Nicholas Clegg: They are Labour cuts in Newcastle, which if I read the newspapers this morning, I see that the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) is intervening to stop in a shameless act of political opportunism and cynicism. The Labour party in Newcastle is closing every single arts and cultural institution, which other non-Labour councils are not doing, and simply pointing the finger of blame at the coalition Government. When is the Labour party going to start taking responsibility for the mess that it created in the first place?

Karen Lumley: Will the Deputy Prime Minister tell me why he thinks that a vote in Wrexham is worth more than a vote in Redditch?

Nicholas Clegg: I do not. That is why we have not repealed the legislation on boundaries. For all the reasons that the hon. Lady is familiar with, we will not be proceeding with that change during the course of this Parliament.

Lilian Greenwood: The last census confirmed that there is a serious shortfall between Nottingham’s adult population and the number of people on the electoral register. I hope that the Deputy Prime Minister agrees that this is not only a democratic deficit but a serious threat to council
	finances on top of his Government’s disproportionate cuts. Will he take urgent steps to address the problem of under-registration?

Nicholas Clegg: Yes. I hope that the hon. Lady is aware of the number of initiatives we have undertaken to provide information and, obviously, to design the move towards individual voter registration in a way that we hope will sustain the electoral register to the highest extent possible. It is worth recalling that the reason why we are moving to individual voter registration is partly to make sure that the register is accurate and as complete as possible, but also to bear down on the unacceptable levels of fraud in the register in the past.

Rehman Chishti: Medway council in my constituency has expressed an interest in the city deals initiative. Will the Deputy Prime Minister meet me and representatives from Medway and north Kent to discuss how the area could benefit from the city deals initiative?

Nicholas Clegg: I would certainly be more than happy to make sure that a meeting is arranged with the cities Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark). I am delighted that there is growing demand for the principal city deals to be spread across the country. I see the early city deals, which we have already entered into with the eight largest cities in the country outside the south-east, as trailblazers for a wider programme of decentralisation across the country.

Kerry McCarthy: In the light of the current horsemeat scandal, what advice would the Deputy Prime Minister give to consumers and Liberal Democrat voters who think they are buying one thing but end up with something completely different?

Nicholas Clegg: The hon. Lady may ask that question, but millions of people in this country heard her party claim that they were going to end boom and bust and saw her shadow Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls), go on a prawn cocktail charm offensive to suck up to the banks which created the problem in the first place. Perhaps she should account for that.

John Pugh: May I encourage the Deputy Prime Minister to say more about the benefits of the Government’s new social care policy and its advantages for a constituency such as mine in Southport or, to use another random example, Eastleigh?

Nicholas Clegg: The benefits of the social care reforms that we announced yesterday are universal. They mean that, for the first time, everybody will have the peace of mind that they will not need to sell their property to deal with the catastrophic costs that can be faced when encountering very high social care costs. We are dramatically increasing, precisely in line with Andrew Dilnot’s recommendations, the means-test threshold so that many more people will be given assistance in the first place. Crucially, if the insurance industry now responds to the incentives built into our proposal to cap the number of costs that can be incurred, we hope that
	no one will have to make any payments for their social care, because their needs will be covered by insurance policies taken out in the future.

Steve Rotheram: On social mobility, which barrier does the Deputy Prime Minister believe to be the most difficult for my constituents to overcome? Is it kicking people out of their homes as a consequence of the bedroom tax? Is it axing Sure Start, scrapping the education maintenance allowance and trebling tuition fees? Or is it simply his party propping up a Tory Government?

Nicholas Clegg: The hon. Gentleman always reads out his questions beautifully; I am sure it took some time to get that one right. [Interruption.] A little spontaneity from the hon. Gentleman would not go amiss from time to time. It is the Government parties that are repairing the banks that went belly up because of the irresponsibility of his party; it is the Government parties that ended the disgrace of the tax system under Labour, which meant that a cleaner paid more on their wages than their hedge-fund-manager boss paid on their shares; and it is the Government parties that are ensuring that someone on the minimum wage in Liverpool and elsewhere will pay the half the income tax that they paid under Labour.

Andrea Leadsom: Does the Deputy Prime Minister regret telling Chatham House in November that there was
	“absolutely no prospect of securing a real-terms cut in the EU budget”?
	Does he now believe, in fact, that the Prime Minister is on a bit of a roll and may also be successful in achieving the real repatriation and renegotiation of powers from the European Union that will give Britain a better deal?

Nicholas Clegg: The lesson of the highly successful summit last week is that it is important to set out a tough but realisable negotiating position, as we did across the coalition—I spent months making the case for the tough approach that we took with politicians around the European Union—and then to reach out to create alliances with other countries, including the Dutch, the Swedes, the Danes and, crucially, the Germans, and then to win the argument. If we want to reform Europe, we have to get stuck in and win the argument, not simply withdraw to the margins and hope that it will be won by default.

Barry Sheerman: Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware that one of his ministerial colleagues in the House of Lords has told the other place that her Ministry is no longer collecting regional data and that that will be a pattern across the country? Is that not a terrible blow in terms of how we treat our regions? Is it not time for a rethink about the regions of our country, which are steadily losing their power and influence? When people come to London, they see that all the power and influence has shifted down here.

Nicholas Clegg: Bluntly, ever since the referendum in the north-east failed, the experiment of moving towards a new form of regional governance has been ill-fated. The concept of regional governance did
	not connect with people’s loyalties locally or at county level. Through the city deals process, we are trying to create economic units that mean something to people and make economic sense. In the wake of the move away from regional governance, I hope that a much more meaningful form of decentralisation will take root.

Fiona Bruce: Does the Deputy Prime Minister share my concern, as vice-chair of the North Korea all-party parliamentary group, at today’s news of another nuclear test by that country? What steps will the Government take to condemn that test and to prevent further tests? Equally importantly, what will the Government do to make the Government of North Korea focus on addressing the appalling human rights abuses in that country and the suffering that has been endured by its people for far too long?

Nicholas Clegg: I am sure that everybody on both sides of the House would agree with the hon. Lady’s sentiment. The Foreign Secretary has already spoken out in reaction to the tests that took place in North Korea. They not only threaten peace and stability on the Korean peninsula and internationally, but are in direct violation of three UN Security Council resolutions. In accordance with one of those resolutions, we are consulting urgently with other members of the Security Council to determine what robust action we will take in response.

David Wright: Since 2010, this Government have created 43 peers per year on average. That is more on average than under any of the last five Prime Ministers. Why?

Nicholas Clegg: As I have said, if one looks across the years, under the last Labour Government more than 170 Labour peers were created, which is just under half of the total. We have been very clear that our preference is a smaller and more legitimate House of Lords. That has not come about, so we will make appointments to the House of Lords in line with the terms of the coalition agreement.

Gordon Henderson: I listened with interest to my right hon. Friend’s answer to the deputy leader of the Labour party. I wondered what he would say to my constituent, Glen, who is paraplegic and lives in a specially converted bungalow with two bedrooms, one of which is used by a carer whom he needs occasionally. He has received a letter from Swale borough council advising him that his rent is to rise by £14 a week because he has too many bedrooms.

Nicholas Clegg: Of course I accept, as does everyone, that there are cases that must be dealt with sensitively. That is why we have set aside £50 million of discretionary funding, which local authorities are entirely free to use as they see fit to deal with the difficult cases that may arise. I very much hope that action will be taken to address the anxieties of the constituent to whom my hon. Friend referred.

Barry Gardiner: There is a rumour that the Deputy Prime Minister let slip to the Liaison Committee last week his support for having a 2030 decarbonisation target in the Energy Bill. Will he therefore
	be so kind as to encourage his party to support the cross-party amendments tabled by the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr Yeo) and myself to ensure that precisely what he wants is put in place as quickly as possible?

Nicholas Clegg: I have never made a secret of that being my first preference and neither has the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change. However, others took the contrary view that there should be no decarbonisation target whatever. Very openly, we have compromised such that we will set the decarbonisation target in 2016—the first year of the fifth carbon budget. In the meantime, we will take powers in legislation to set that decarbonisation target. That is the agreement that we have reached in government, we have been open about how we arrived at that position, and that is the position that we will stick to.

John Stevenson: If we are to see real decentralisation and power transferred to local government, does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that structures need to change, and that part of the structural change should be fewer councillors and fewer councils?

Nicholas Clegg: The key thing is that councillors and all elected representatives should at all times seek to work hard for their constituents. I am not entirely persuaded that there is a magic number of councillors; it is essential that we provide more local accountability for more powers flowing down from Whitehall to our local authorities and communities.

Ian Lavery: Some 660,000 vulnerable people will be affected by the introduction of the bedroom tax. Two thirds of those people are disabled. A lot of them will be booted out of their homes as a result of the introduction of the tax. Will the Deputy Prime Minister confirm personally whether or not he supports this pernicious tax against those less well off in society?

Nicholas Clegg: It is entirely legitimate to have disagreements on the measure, but to claim that 660,000 will be booted out of their homes—that is simply not true—is outrageous Labour scaremongering. As the hon. Gentleman knows, there are a number of ways in which to address the additional £14 for those who encounter it—a £50 million discretionary fund is being made available to local authorities. Why should his constituents who receive housing benefit for use in the private rented sector have to cut their cloth to suit their means according to the amount of space they have available in their homes while those same rules do not apply to those who receive housing benefit in social housing?

Robert Halfon: Will my right hon. Friend take action against those MPs who use the conflict in Israel to make inflammatory statements about Jews, and does he not realise that his party is getting a reputation—sadly—among some of its senior members for being hostile to Jewish people?

Nicholas Clegg: I am unambiguous in my condemnation of anyone, from whatever party, including my own, who uses insensitive, intemperate, provocative
	and offensive language to describe that long-running conflict. People have strong feelings on one side or the other, but everybody is duty bound to choose their words carefully and tread carefully when entering into that heated debate.

John Cryer: Will the Deputy Prime Minister answer the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery)? Some 660,000 people will be affected financially by the changes, two thirds of whom are disabled. What does the Deputy Prime Minister think of that?

Nicholas Clegg: I have sought to provide an answer—[Interruption.] No. I have sought to provide an answer first on how people respond. That will depend partly on their specific family circumstances; on their working circumstances and whether they can or cannot increase the amount of hours they work to make up the £14; on whether they have taken people in to live in the spare bedroom to make up the difference that way; and on the use by local authorities of the £50 million discretionary fund that we have made available. I am not at all seeking to pretend that there will not be difficult cases that everyone will struggle with, but there is an underlying problem and we must confront it. Lots of people are waiting to get into social housing, and yet 1 million empty bedrooms are subsidised by housing benefit. We have to deal with that mismatch one way or another.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. I am sorry to disappoint colleagues. I would like to continue but we must move on.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

The Attorney-General was asked—

National Crime Agency

Anas Sarwar: What discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for the Home Department on the establishment of the National Crime Agency.

Oliver Heald: Although the Attorney-General and I have frequent discussions with the Home Secretary, there have been no recent discussions on the NCA, which is created by the Crime and Courts Bill. I am currently serving on the Bill Committee.

Anas Sarwar: Will the Solicitor-General join me in welcoming Gordon Meldrum, the former director-general of the Scottish Crime and Drug Enforcement Agency, as the new director of the NCA? As the Solicitor-General will know, organised crime happens across the UK, irrespective of borders. Will he outline the scale of the NCA and its budget and give the House an example of why we truly are better off together as one United Kingdom?

Oliver Heald: As the hon. Gentleman will know, this is a large and important area of the UK economy that is threatened by serious and organised crime, estimated to be £20 billion a year. It is therefore right, as he says, to have a cross-United Kingdom response. Funding for the agency is a matter for the Home Secretary. The indicative budget for the first year is £407 million.

Peter Bone: The second most profitable crime for organised criminal gangs is human trafficking. Does the Solicitor-General agree that the establishment of the National Crime Agency will help this country fight the evil of human trafficking?

Oliver Heald: My hon. Friend has made a distinguished contribution to the all-party group that deals with this issue. He is absolutely right that we need to focus on this both at home and overseas, and that is what the National Crime Agency will be very well able to do.

Code for Crown Prosecutors

Jack Dromey: What estimate he has made of the likely saving the Crown Prosecution Service will make by introducing proportionality into the public interest test of the Crown prosecutors’ code.

Oliver Heald: The answer is none, as this is not about making savings from the Crown Prosecution Service budget.

Jack Dromey: If the Crown Prosecution Service is to make decisions not to proceed with a prosecution on the grounds of cost or because of concerns about the health of a victim, is it not then right that a proper record is kept of how many and why, so that victims, the public and Parliament can hold both the Crown Prosecution Service and Ministers properly to account?

Oliver Heald: First, it is important that proportionality has been reintroduced to the Code for Crown Prosecutors. We have all seen examples of the schoolyard scuffle or other matters that should not be prosecuted, and where it is important to achieve a balance. On recording, the CPS keeps a considerable amount of records. Of course, that costs money and so there is a balance to be struck, but I will certainly think over the hon. Gentleman’s point.

Robert Buckland: I welcome the reintroduction of the proportionality test as part of the wider public interest test. Will my hon. Friend reassure the constituents I represent that the question of cost is but one of eight questions to be asked by Crown prosecutors when applying the public interest test, and that it will not be determined on the basis of cost alone?

Oliver Heald: My hon. Friend makes the point better perhaps than even I could, but I will just make two short points. First, this is not just about cost, but about assessing cost, the likely sentence, the full circumstances of the case and the other points made by my hon. Friend. Secondly, with regard to effective case management, it is often important in a complex case to
	concentrate on the main and most serious suspects, and so this gives an opportunity for the prosecution to consider that.

Rape (Conviction Rates)

Seema Malhotra: What recent discussions he has had with the Director of Public Prosecutions on increasing the Crown Prosecution Service’s conviction rate for rape where the defendant contests the charge.

Dominic Grieve: I meet the Director of Public Prosecutions regularly and discuss this issue, most recently on 23 January 2013. The Crown Prosecution Service remains committed to robustly prosecuting perpetrators of rape and serious sexual assaults. Following an investigation of rape where the defendant contests the charge, the CPS will work closely with the police to build a strong prosecution case and review the matter in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors.

Seema Malhotra: Frances Andrade tragically took her own life during the course of the trial that she described as like being “raped all over again”. What steps will the Attorney-General take to ensure that CPS policy on vulnerable victims and witnesses seeking counselling is enforced, particularly given the worrying allegations that Mrs Andrade was discouraged by the police from seeking support?

Dominic Grieve: There is no doubt that the story of Mrs Andrade is tragic, and I am sure the House will join me in expressing our sympathy to her relatives and family. I take very seriously any suggestion that she might not have received the support to which she was entitled. As the hon. Lady will be aware, the Home Secretary announced yesterday that the police were carrying out a review of their role in this matter, and I have no doubt that the CPS will contribute to that process. I can say that on the information I have been given at present, it appears to me that the CPS took all steps that I would have expected to try to support her as a vulnerable victim and witness. However, I would like to emphasise that that is not to say that there may not be lessons that can be learned from this tragic case.

Alan Beith: Does it not need to be made very clear that every possible assistance in the courtroom will be offered to witnesses in such a position and that therapy or treatment needed for the mental health of the witness will not be prevented?

Dominic Grieve: I agree with my right hon. Friend. Taking the second matter first, let me say that the CPS’s guidelines are crystal clear that a victim or witness giving evidence should not be prevented from accessing the care or counselling they might require. Indeed, I believe that Mrs Andrade was specifically referred to the possibility of counselling when it was seen that she was distressed prior to the case taking place. On the issues in court, protocols are in place to try to familiarise people with the court process and to ensure that the trauma of giving evidence in court is lessened, including of course the possibility of special
	measures. In Mrs Andrade’s case, however, she made it clear that she did not wish special measures to be introduced.

Diana Johnson: I draw the Attorney-General’s attention to the comments made by the Surrey police and crime commissioner that seem to contradict what the Attorney-General has just said. Might it be appropriate to write to all PCCs to reiterate what he has just said to the House of Commons?

Dominic Grieve: I am aware of the comment about what might have been said in Surrey, but I reiterate the position of both the CPS and the Greater Manchester police, who investigated this matter: there is no reason someone should not receive counselling and every reason they should, if they need it. I know that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is aware of this issue being raised; I am obviously aware of it as well, and I can reassure the hon. Lady that we will investigate to ascertain whether there was a failure of communication on the part of anyone in respect of Mrs Andrade.

Rehman Chishti: On the issue of sexual violence, the CPS website states that one in 10 women who experience sexual assault do not report it to the police. What is the Attorney-General’s Department doing, in line with other agencies, to tackle this?

Dominic Grieve: As my hon. Friend will appreciate, the CPS gets it references from the police, so unless a case is referred to it, it cannot carry out an investigation. It works closely with the police, however, both to improve the conviction rates for rape—it has been consistently successful in doing that for some years—and to encourage people to come forward by ensuring that the victim support process available provides reassurance that people will be helped.

Emily Thornberry: Has the tragic suicide of Frances Andrade after giving evidence as a victim of rape not shown us that we have a system strewn with high-minded codes, pledges and guidance to victims that are brushed aside in practice? She was refused counselling and, as already stated, her PCC has said that victims will not and should not be referred for counselling until after they have given evidence. That is clearly in breach of the agreed code. Is the CPS in charge of these cases or not? It clearly did not know what was happening in the case of Mrs Andrade. In how many other cases has the victim not been properly supported and does the CPS simply not know what is going on? I welcome the fact that the Home Secretary has stated that she will look into this and that the Attorney-General has stated today that he will too, but is it not time that we had a proper review that overarched all the agencies to ensure that we have a decent rape prosecution policy in this country, not one that just looks good on paper?

Dominic Grieve: I share the hon. Lady’s concerns, although I am not sure I entirely share the sweeping generalisations that she derives from them. As I said earlier, the evidence is that, under the last Government
	and the present Government, through the work of the CPS, the conviction rate for rape has consistently been improving. The House will want to bear that in mind. On the very serious suggestions that Mrs Andrade was somehow misled, yes that is a matter of concern to me. As I indicated in an earlier answer, the information I have been given supports my view that both the CPS and the Greater Manchester police correctly advised her and recommended routes by which she could obtain counselling. The suggestion that some other organisation or police force might have said something to the contrary is obviously of serious concern and will be looked into.

Serious Fraud Office

Shabana Mahmood: Whether the Serious Fraud Office holds contracts with any companies which are subject to a criminal investigation by a prosecuting agency overseas.

Dominic Grieve: The Serious Fraud Office is not routinely informed about the work of overseas prosecuting agencies and where it is properly involved, it would not be appropriate to comment in relation to current investigations or prosecutions.

Shabana Mahmood: The Attorney-General knows that at least one contractor of the Serious Fraud Office is being investigated for fraud overseas. Apart from being embarrassing, does this not constitute a conflict of interest? Will he tell the House when he proposes to publish the findings of the Allan report, which was completed in 2011?

Dominic Grieve: I shall start by dealing with the first part of the question and then deal briefly with Sir Alex Allan’s report. I am not in a position to comment on what is or is not being investigated. That is a private matter for the Serious Fraud Office. When it takes on an investigation, wherever it can, it publishes that on its website, but there are sometimes circumstances where it cannot do so without prejudice to the investigation. If I may say to the hon. Lady, such conflicts of interest can arise quite frequently, but there are a whole series of protocols in place in prosecutorial organisations to ensure that that does not impede their efficiency or ability to carry out such investigations.
	As for Sir Alex Allan’s report, the hon. Lady knows from what I have said previously in the House that I would very much like to see as much of its contents as possible published, but there are issues in respect of data protection. When I have worked through those, I hope to be able to satisfy her wishes in that respect.

Prosecutions for Burglary (Northamptonshire)

Philip Hollobone: How many successful prosecutions were carried out by the Crown Prosecution Service for burglary in Northamptonshire in the latest year for which figures are available where the defendant had (a) previously been convicted for at least one other criminal offence and (b) no previous convictions.

Oliver Heald: Two-hundred and twenty-seven defendants were successfully prosecuted by the Crown Prosecution Service for burglary offences in Northamptonshire in 2011-12, at a conviction rate of 89%. No central records of a defendant’s previous convictions or non-convictions are maintained by the Crown Prosecution Service.

Philip Hollobone: I congratulate the Crown Prosecution Service in Northamptonshire on prosecuting 227 burglars. Burglary is an horrific crime, and I strongly suspect that most of those 227 had previous convictions of one sort of another. May I encourage the CPS to collect those data, so that we can head off more potential burglars in future?

Oliver Heald: The Crown Prosecution Service is not the organisation that maintains the database of convictions, and that is unlikely to change. However, in the period 2009 to 2012, the number of defendants prosecuted for burglary offences increased by 6.4%, compared with the national fall in prosecutions of 8.9%, so he can be assured that burglary is being given proper attention.

Female Genital Mutilation (Conviction Rates)

Kerry McCarthy: What recent discussions he has had with the Director of Public Prosecutions on increasing the Crown Prosecution Service’s conviction rate for female genital mutilation.

Oliver Heald: The Director of Public Prosecutions regularly briefs the Attorney-General and me on the issue of prosecuting for female genital mutilation and on the action plan that was developed following the Crown Prosecution Service round table on 28 September 2012.

Kerry McCarthy: I very much welcome the DPP’s action plan, which is a positive step forward. May I urge the Solicitor-General to look at the work being done in Bristol with young women from affected communities? They have been really brave in speaking out—they have even developed a two-part storyline for “Casualty”, which will be shown later this year. Does he agree that ensuring that such work is community-led as well as Crown Prosecution Service-led is an important way of dealing with the problem?

Oliver Heald: I certainly agree with that. The inter-ministerial group on violence against women and girls, which is chaired by the Home Secretary, is taking a particular interest in those sorts of approaches, so I commend the hon. Lady on mentioning it in the House, and she is absolutely right. Finding the right evidence and having the support of the community—and, therefore, support for the victim—is vital.

John Cryer: Further to that answer, has the Solicitor-General any measures in mind that would make it easier for people to report this dreadful crime? I am thinking in particular of the language barrier, which is often a factor in cases of this kind.

Oliver Heald: The action plan that I have mentioned contains a number of proposals to improve the situation and to make it easier for people to come forward. The main obstacle is not so much the language barrier. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman can imagine that many of these cases involve young girls from particular communities, and that there are cultural and other taboos that make this very difficult for them. The real point is the approach mentioned by the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) involving getting community support. The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, however.

Scottish Independence (EU Membership)

Michael Connarty: Whether he has had discussions with the European Commission on the legal status of Scotland’s membership of the EU in the event of a yes vote to independence.

Dominic Grieve: I have not discussed with the European Commission the legal status of Scotland’s membership of the EU. The United Kingdom Government’s position is that the most likely outcome is that Scotland would have to join the EU as a new member state. That position has been backed up by comments from the President of the European Commission and by the President of the European Council.

Michael Connarty: We have a phrase in the Scottish language, “Facts are chiels that winn’a ding”, which means “Facts are children who do not lie”. Despite the wonderful report by Professor James Crawford of Cambridge university and Professor Alan Boyle of Edinburgh university—which includes the quote on page 8 from the President of the Commission that has just been referred to—on which the Government have based their most recent document, may I plead with the Attorney-General to get engaged in this issue? We need to get to the point at which the legal officers in this Chamber and the majority of the people in my party, representing the people of Scotland, are dealing with facts, not with assertions. Will he please get involved with the interrogation of the Commission and set down the legal facts on what will happen? I think that that would support Barroso’s position.

Dominic Grieve: I understand the hon. Gentleman’s message. The view that I express is the view of the United Kingdom Government, and it is backed up by the advice of Professor Crawford and Professor Boyle. The overwhelming weight of international precedent is that, in the event of independence, the remainder of the UK would continue to exercise its international rights and obligations, and that Scotland would form a new state. In those circumstances, Scotland would have to apply to join the European Union.

Christopher Chope: But is there not an alternative legal viewpoint, which is that if Scotland were to leave the United Kingdom, the United Kingdom without Scotland would itself have to reapply for membership of the European Union?

Dominic Grieve: No, I am afraid that my hon. Friend is entirely mistaken on that point.

Angus MacNeil: The Electoral Commission has specifically recommended that the UK Government and the Scottish Government should agree jointly the processes that should follow either outcome of the referendum. Will
	the UK Government accept the Deputy First Minister’s invitation to prepare a joint submission to the European Commission setting out a transition process in the event of a yes vote? If not, why not? What are they afraid of? Or do they prefer scare stories?

Dominic Grieve: The United Kingdom Government are not in the business of prejudging the outcome of the referendum.

Police Integrity

Theresa May: With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement about our work to ensure the highest standards of integrity in the police.
	We are fortunate in Britain to have the finest police officers in the world. They put themselves in harm’s way to protect the public, they are cutting crime even as we reduce police spending, and the vast majority of officers do their work with a strong sense of fairness and duty. But the good work of those thousands of officers is undermined when a minority behave inappropriately.
	In the last year, we have seen the Leveson inquiry, which cleared the police of widespread corruption but called for greater transparency in policing, and the shocking report of the Hillsborough independent panel. We have seen the sacking of PC Simon Harwood and the investigation of several chief officers for misconduct, and yesterday I told the House about the investigation now being led by Chief Constable Mick Creedon into the work of undercover officers from the Metropolitan police.
	I want everyone to understand that I do not believe there is endemic corruption in the police, and I know that the vast majority of police officers conduct themselves with the highest standards of integrity. This was confirmed by Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary in its report last year, but that does not mean that we should ignore the fact that when it does occur, police corruption and misconduct undermines justice, lets down the decent majority of officers and damages the public’s confidence in the police.
	We need the police to become much more transparent in their business. We need clearer rules for how officers should conduct themselves. We need to open up the top ranks so policing is less of a closed shop. We need to make sure that officers who do wrong are investigated and punished, and that the organisations we ask to police the police are equipped to do the job.
	Many of our existing police reforms address those challenges. The new College of Policing will improve the quality of police leadership and drive up standards. Police and crime commissioners are making the police more accountable to their communities. Direct entry into the senior ranks will open up the police to talented outsiders. HMIC is more independent of the police and for the first time it is led by a non-policing figure.
	These reforms will help, but we also need to take further specific measures to root out corruption and misconduct from the police. First, in line with the recommendations made by Lord Justice Leveson, national registers of chief officers’ pay and perks packages, gifts and hospitality, outside interests, including second jobs, and their contact with the media will be published online. Secondly, the college will publish a new code of ethics, which will be distributed to officers of all ranks. In addition, the College of Policing will work with chief officers to create a single set of professional standards on which officers will be trained and tested throughout their careers.
	Thirdly, to prevent officers who lose their jobs as a result of misconduct from being recruited by other forces, we will introduce for the first time a national register of officers struck off from the police. The list will be managed and published by the College of Policing. Fourthly, to introduce a sanction for officers who resign or retire to avoid dismissal, hearings will be taken to their conclusion notwithstanding the officer’s departure from the force. Where misconduct is proven, these officers will also be struck off by the College of Policing.
	Fifthly, the college will establish a stronger and more consistent system of vetting for police officers, which chief constables and police and crime commissioners will have to consider when making decisions about recruitment and promotions. Every candidate for chief officer ranks will need to be successfully vetted before being accepted by the police national assessment centre.
	Sixthly, Lord Justice Leveson’s report made several recommendations in respect of policing, focused on providing greater transparency and openness. The Government accept what has been recommended, and the College of Policing, the Association of Chief Police Officers and others have agreed to take forward the relevant work that falls to them. I will place in the Library of the House details of the Government’s response to each of the Leveson report’s recommendations on policing.
	Finally, I want to make sure that the Independent Police Complaints Commission is equipped to do its important work. Over the years, its role has been evolving and the proposals I announce today develop it further. Public concern about the IPCC has been based on its powers and its resources, and I want to address both issues.
	Regarding its powers, last year Parliament legislated, with welcome cross-party support, to give the IPCC the ability to investigate historic cases in exceptional circumstances. In the same legislation, we gave the IPCC the power to compel police officers and staff to attend interviews as witnesses. In addition, I have already said that we will legislate as soon as parliamentary time allows to give the IPCC the power to investigate private sector companies working for the police, along with other powers that the IPCC has asked for to improve its effectiveness and increase public confidence. I am prepared to consider any further legislative changes that the commission says it needs.
	I believe that the main difficulty for the IPCC is its capacity to investigate complaints itself. Last year, the commission investigated just 130 of the 2,100 serious or sensitive cases that were referred to it independently, while supervising or managing another 200. Individual police forces investigated the remainder, but 31% of appeals against forces’ handling of complaints were successful. That is simply not acceptable. I will therefore transfer to the IPCC responsibility for dealing with all serious and sensitive allegations. I also intend to transfer resources from individual forces’ professional standards departments and other relevant areas to the IPCC in order to ensure that it has the budget and the manpower that will enable it to do its work.
	The Government’s police reforms are working well, and crime is falling. Corruption and misconduct are thankfully the rare exception and not the norm among our police. However, that does not mean that we should not act. I believe that this is a comprehensive plan to address public concern about the integrity of the police, and I commend my statement to the House.

Yvette Cooper: I thank the Home Secretary for giving me a copy of her statement. This is an important issue, and many of the measures that she has outlined are sensible in principle. However, I shall press her for more detail on how they will work in practice, and there are a couple of areas where I believe that she has not gone far enough.
	The whole House will wish to recognise and show support for the international reputation of British policing, which is respected globally for low levels of corruption, high standards of integrity and our tradition of policing by consent. As the Home Secretary said, the vast majority of police officers join the force to help the public and keep people safe from crime and harm, and they take great risks when they do so. We think of the two police officers who were shot down when answering a routine 999 call in Greater Manchester, but also of officers who go the extra mile every day to help the public—perhaps stepping in to rescue people and save their lives; perhaps sitting with bereaved parents whose teenager has been killed in a traffic accident.
	Police officers themselves are deeply concerned about serious cases that undermine confidence in policing: hacking, the Hillsborough tragedy, the problems with undercover officers, and cases in which policing has failed to protect the public or to deliver justice. That is why the vast majority of police officers also want action to be taken against officers who let their force and the public down, as well as action to improve standards.
	Many of the Home Secretary’s measures are sensible. We support the implementation of the Leveson recommendations, and also the introduction of greater transparency. We support the establishment of a code of ethics and higher professional standards, and we support stronger action when those are breached. We have also argued for stronger action in relation to retired officers when things go wrong. The Stevens commission on the future of policing has taken evidence on issues involving codes of ethics, national registers, the role of the College of Policing and proposals for striking police officers off, and is likely to make new proposals in that regard.
	However, can the Home Secretary clarify what she means? Will there be a national professional register that all police officers must be on, will there be standards that they must meet, and will they be struck off from the register if they do not meet those standards? If so, by whom will they be struck off? Will it be the IPCC or the College of Policing, and will that be underpinned by legislation? Or does the Home Secretary simply propose to put together a list of officers who have already been sacked by their local forces?
	I do not believe that the Home Secretary is going far enough on the IPCC. As she will know, I have argued for the last 12 months that it does not have enough powers and resources to deliver for the public. I welcomed the action that she took and the legislation, which we supported, to strengthen powers, but her reforms of the IPCC still seem to be incremental. Increased resources are welcome, but can she tell us how much there will be and where it will come from? Is she top-slicing the budgets of police forces across the country, and if so, by how much? How many extra police officers does she think those forces will lose as a result?
	During the passage of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011, Ministers argued that more cases should be dealt with by individual forces rather than by the IPCC. In the Act the Home Secretary downgraded the IPCC’s capacity, halving the minimum number of commissioners. Now she seems to be saying that more cases should be dealt with by the IPCC rather than by individual forces. Has she changed her view since the passage of the Act, and can she clarify her proposals?
	I am also not convinced that the Home Secretary is doing enough to strengthen the powers and the culture of the IPCC to restore public confidence and ensure that lessons are learnt. Nothing is being done about the confused and overlapping bodies that are supposed to act when policing goes wrong. Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary, the IPCC, individual police and crime commissioners, police and crime panels and, now, the College of Policing all have a role, but it is still unclear who does what, and as a result, who should act when things go wrong and ensure that lessons are learnt. I therefore think that the Home Secretary has not been sufficiently radical. May I urge her to look again at the possibility of replacing the IPCC altogether with a new police standards authority, along with a new, coherent framework of standards and accountability?
	Finally, I hope that the Home Secretary agrees that the best way to ensure rising police standards is to have well-motivated, professional police officers who are keen to do a good job and serve the public. She will know that there is a massive problem with low morale among police officers, who do not feel valued, and I am keen to hear how she intends to address that.
	Police officers do a vital job every day on our behalf, and our duty in this House is to make sure that they get the support they need and to have a proper framework of accountability to keep standards high. The Secretary of State’s statement is welcome and responds to many of the concerns that we have raised, but I urge her to look at the proposals again as I remain concerned that they do not go far enough and will not be sufficient to deliver what the police and public need.

Theresa May: I welcome the shadow Home Secretary’s support on a number of the issues I have addressed today, most significantly the implementation of the Leveson report recommendations, the code of ethics and action on retired officers. She asked two key questions. First, on the national register, the College of Policing will look at how best to address the issue in terms of its general work with police officers and others on standards and development. I expect that there will at least be a list of those officers who have been struck off, and whom one would not expect other police forces, here in the UK or elsewhere, to take on. It is for the College of Policing to decide the form in which to publish that list, and it will consider that matter very shortly.
	Secondly, the right hon. Lady said there were a lot of overlapping organisations, and she mentioned the HMIC and the IPCC. HMIC does not investigate individual complaints against individual officers; that is the job of the IPCC. HMIC has a different role. It looks at the efficiency and effectiveness of police forces; it looks across the force, not at individual complaints. Those two bodies do two different jobs.
	The right hon. Lady referred to the changes and comments we made during the passage of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011. We have indeed put more low-level complaints to the individual forces, but the point I am making today is that we want to ensure the IPCC can handle all the serious and sensitive allegations made against police officers. Last year, just 330 out of 2,100 such cases were independently investigated or supervised and managed by the IPCC. I think it should be able to look at all the serious and sensitive allegations against police officers, which is why we are looking to transfer resources from police standards departments in police forces to the IPCC. We will look at any manpower or funding implications and ensure that the IPCC has sufficient resources to be able to deal with all the cases we feel it should be dealing with.
	The right hon. Lady asked why we do not just scrap the IPCC and set it up again with a different name. Today, I have set out the key issues of substance that will make a difference to the ability of the IPCC to do its work. The question that she has to answer is whether she is interested merely in rebranding something, or whether she is genuinely interested in agreeing with me on what the IPCC needs in order to be able to do its job properly.

Mark Reckless: The Home Secretary has probably done more to reform the police than any Home Secretary since Robert Peel. Many police officers are concerned, however, that their profession has come to be held in less respect. Does she expect the College of Policing to be the basis, through professional standards, on which the police can reclaim their self-respect?

Theresa May: I expect that the College of Policing will make a real difference. I believe setting up a professional standards body for the police that will set standards and take on many of the ACPO business areas in looking at those standards, as well as dealing with the ethics of policing for the area that it covers and with the training and development of officers, will give a boost to officers in terms of their professionalism and the regard in which they are held. I am pleased that Professor Shirley Pearce, former vice-chancellor of Loughborough university, is the chairman. We also have a very energetic chief executive in Chief Constable Alex Marshall, and I am pleased that members of the police force at all ranks are part of the college, including members of police staff. It is important that it covers everybody.

Jack Straw: As the Home Secretary who established the IPCC in the first place, may I welcome the announcements by the Home Secretary today, which seem a sensible development of those powers? I have two questions. First, the chair of the IPCC, Dame Anne Owers, served for seven years as an extremely effective and independent chief inspector of prisons and I have confidence in her work and ability to take forward the IPCC. Since the Home Secretary has not mentioned Dame Anne, would she like to do so?
	My second point concerns the relationship between the professional standards units of individual forces and the IPCC. I understand that at a time of limited
	resources, money has to come from somewhere and that some transfer is sensible. However, will the Home Secretary have a care to ensure that professional standards units in individual forces are not so denuded that they cannot do their crucial initial work of identifying early possible bad police officers, and of investigating complaints that may start at a low level but turn into more serious matters that need to be allocated to the IPCC?

Theresa May: I thank the right hon. Gentleman and, indeed, I see this as a development of the IPCC. Its role over the years has been changing and this is a necessary and important development. Dame Anne Owers has done an excellent job since becoming chairman of the IPCC. The role is changing slightly from the one she first came to, but she is addressing it with great distinction and commitment, as one would expect from her. Indeed, in her time overseeing prisons she built up a reputation for herself and her independence, and it is good that we have somebody with that reputation as chair of the IPCC.
	On the transfer of services, the point is that work will be transferring from professional standards departments to the IPCC, so it therefore makes sense to transfer resources. We are not talking about not having professional standards departments at all, and a discussion will be had with forces about the level of that transfer and where the boundary appropriately falls.

John Whittingdale: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the great unanswered questions in the sorry saga of phone hacking is how although the police had evidence taken from Glenn Mulcaire in 2006 that suggested widespread lawbreaking was taking place, not only was nothing done about it, but it was denied that such evidence existed? That matter was intended to be examined by Lord Justice Leveson in part 2 of his inquiry. Will the Home Secretary confirm that an investigation will still take place to answer those questions?

Theresa May: My understanding is that that will indeed be part of the second part that will take place, but as my hon. Friend knows, there has always been a question about what can be done. A great deal was done by Lord Justice Leveson on issues that he needed to consider at the time of other police investigations. Of course, those police investigations are still continuing.

Keith Vaz: I warmly welcome the excellent statement from the Home Secretary not just because it implements Leveson, but because it accepts many of the recommendations made by the Home Affairs Committee over a number of years. I share her ambitions for the College of Policing, and as she knows, Alex Marshall will be appearing before the Committee this afternoon.
	Will the Home Secretary say whether police officers will still need to seek the permission of their individual chief constable before taking up a second job, and therefore before they are put on the register? Will she consider looking at police and crime commissioners? We still have no central register on which they can declare their outside interests, and since she is full of reforming zeal, in that same mode will she please ensure that that issue is also considered?

Theresa May: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his remarks about my statement. On his first point, yes, I would still expect individual officers to seek that permission before taking a second job, but a public document would make it clear which officers had second jobs, alongside other things. He and I have a slight disagreement on police and crime commissioners. Each individual PCC is required to publish information on their interests so that the electorate in their area knows where they stand and what their interests are—just as we require others who are elected to register their interests appropriately. It is appropriate for that to be done at local level, rather than maintaining a central register.

Julian Huppert: I, too, welcome this statement, which implements not only the recent Home Affairs Committee report, but the Liberal Democrat policy motion on empowering the IPCC, which was passed last year. I especially welcome the commitment that the IPCC will cover private providers. As Nick Hardwick, the former chair of the IPCC, said,
	“if it looks like a police officer, talks like a police officer, walks like a police officer, the IPCC should investigate it.”
	Will the Home Secretary confirm that she has spoken to Dame Anne Owers and the IPCC about resources, and that it be well-resourced enough to deal with serious cases and also look at private contractors?

Mr Speaker: I hope the hon. Gentleman feels that in that very full question he has covered all elements of the relevant Liberal Democrat motion and brought it to the full attention of the House, just in case we had not previously noticed.

Theresa May: In other circumstances, I might say that I was now worried, Mr Speaker, but we are in coalition, so I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. It is important that private companies working for the police are included, but that will require changes to legislation for which parliamentary time would have to be made available. I am sorry, but with all the banter I have forgotten the second point.

Julian Huppert: Resources.

Theresa May: Yes, I have sat down with Dame Anne Owers and talked about this issue. We must do more detailed work on exactly what resources will be required to enable the IPCC to do what we are asking, but we have started those discussions.

David Winnick: These reforms are welcome; they could go further, but let us give praise for what is to be done.
	Does the Home Secretary accept that there is a good deal of dissatisfaction with the IPCC? One factor in that is undoubtedly the number of former police officers, some of whom have held senior ranks, investigating the police. That gives the impression that the complaints body is not as genuine as it should be. Should that be looked into?

Theresa May: It will be for the IPCC, in discussion with the Department, to decide on the sort of people it wishes to employ in increasing its investigative capacity. In a sense, there is a slight Catch-22 situation because
	the very people in this country who are used to investigation, and have the skills and experience in that regard, are police officers.

David Nuttall: I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement. Will she clarify how being struck off will affect an individual police officer’s eligibility to claim their pension? There has been concern over officers retiring early when facing disciplinary procedures in order to claim their pension.

Theresa May: My statement today does not cover anything related to pensions, but the importance of a police officer being struck off once found guilty of misconduct is that any other police force to which that officer applies will see that they have been struck off and are therefore not suitable for employment. Perhaps my hon. Friend and other hon. Members will recall PC Simon Harwood. Issues were raised about his behaviour during his employment by one force, but he then left that force and was re-employed by another. The register of struck-off officers will exist to stop that sort of issue happening.

Mark Durkan: The Home Secretary referred to the quality of police officers, and in that context I want to acknowledge the service of Constable Philippa Reynolds, who was killed in the line of duty in my constituency at the weekend. How will the Home Secretary ensure that the standards and safeguards she has referred to today will also apply to the National Crime Agency with its constabulary powers and special constables? Can she assure the House that the NCA’s engagement with the press will be to the Leveson standard?

Theresa May: May I join the hon. Gentleman in sending sympathy and condolences to the family of Constable Philippa Reynolds, who sadly died in that traffic incident at the weekend? May I also commend the officers of the Police Service of Northern Ireland for the work they do, day in, day out, to keep people safe in Northern Ireland? On the Leveson requirements, we will be discussing with either ACPO or the College of Policing, where relevant, how each of those can best be implemented. Lord Justice Leveson reflected in his report that the police landscape had changed over the time during which the evidence was taken, so we need to consider how best to ensure that the requirements can be implemented properly in the new policing landscape.

Angie Bray: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, although we are all aware that there have been some unacceptable relationships between certain police officers and journalists, the press often provides invaluable assistance in helping to solve crime? Post-Leveson, many police forces are seriously restricting contact between police officers and journalists. Is there a danger that that could become too heavy-handed and counter-productive?

Theresa May: Of course we all accept that there will be occasions when the police wish to talk to the press to enlist its help in a particular investigation that is taking place. We accept that such occasions do occur, but it is right that we say to the police that they have to be more considerate of the implications of their talking to the press in other circumstances. That is why ACPO had, prior to the Leveson report—this is picked up in the
	report—been looking at what appropriate relations are between the police and the press. Having transparency is a great way of ensuring that people can see that these discussions are being held where they are appropriate. It is the transparency element that Lord Justice Leveson was keen on and that we will be taking forward.

Stephen McCabe: There is much to commend in this statement. In other countries where wages and conditions are poor, the result is often that police tax rather than arrest criminals. Is the Home Secretary absolutely certain that her cut in wages for new police constables, meaning that they now earn less than a trainee manager at McDonald’s, will not have an impact on police standards in this country?

Theresa May: I have absolute faith in the standards and integrity of our police officers, and I am tempted to say that the hon. Gentleman’s question almost did not deserve a reply.

Bob Stewart: My right hon. Friend has already declared that she intends to invite talented outsiders to step forward to be considered for senior positions in the police. What sort of person is she considering? May they have no police experience whatsoever?

Theresa May: We have picked from, and are putting into place, different proposals as a result of the Winsor review recommendations. One is to have direct entry at superintendant level, where it would not be necessary for the individual to have police experience, but it would be necessary for them to go through an appropriate training period before they were able to take on their tasks as superintendant. Another is to open up the opportunities for chief constables to those with relevant policing experience—such experience would be necessary in those cases, but in a common law country. My hon. Friend asked what sort of people we might see coming in on this direct entry, and I say to him that perhaps ex-military people might be interested; I do not know, but he may very well want to forge a path.

Robert Flello: My right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) yesterday raised the tragic and appalling case of Frances Andrade, and the Home Secretary said she would reflect on it. To give victims and witnesses reassurance about the integrity of the police and the advice they get from the police service, will she reassure the House that she will urgently write to police forces to ensure that, in line with existing guidance, victims and witnesses can have the counselling and care they need and deserve?

Theresa May: Obviously, this issue was raised yesterday and I addressed it yesterday. It is important, and one thing that the College of Policing will be examining across the board of policing, in due course, is how police officers deal with, and how it is appropriate to deal with, certain types of crime and certain types of victim. A huge amount has been done in recent years to improve the way in which police forces deal with allegations of sexual abuse, sexual exploitation and rape, but of course, as I said yesterday, we will be looking at the lessons that can be learned from that particular case.

Mark Pawsey: May I echo the Home Secretary’s remarks about the quality and standards of our officers? There are organisations, both public and private, that are benefiting from the new ideas brought in by key people with fresh experience and additional areas of expertise. Does she agree that there are no reasons why policing should not benefit in the same way?

Theresa May: I very much agree. There has been the concept over the years that someone had to come in at the bottom and work their way up. We need to change that, both by enabling the fast-tracking of individuals who are obviously talented when they enter the police force and by opening up, as he says, to new ideas, cultures and experiences, which can only benefit policing. I am very much of that view.

William McCrea: Constable Reynolds, who was mentioned by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) a moment ago, was a constituent of mine, and I extend to her parents and the family circle my sympathy at this time of their bereavement. I am sure that the Home Secretary will agree that police officers are like the community they serve, in that they are not without failure or mistake, and that it is vital that the police work to the highest standard of integrity. However, does she not also agree that we must be careful that we do not tie their hands with regulation so that they are not able to do the duty they are supposed to be doing—protecting the community?

Theresa May: I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is important that we ensure that we have the appropriate structures, frameworks and codes for the police to work with, but their job requires them to do extraordinary things and we do not want to tie them up in regulation such that they are not able to do that job in cutting crime and protecting the public.

Robert Halfon: When we are looking at police integrity, can we also look at the integrity of those people who suggested that the Government could not make difficult financial decisions and carry out reforms without crime going up? The reforms the Government have made have ensured that the level of crime has fallen.

Theresa May: Yes, our police reforms are working. As my hon. Friend says, we were told by the official Opposition that the only thing that would happen when the reforms and the cuts in police budgets took place was that crime would go up, but of course exactly the opposite has happened and we have seen that crime continues to fall.

Catherine McKinnell: Although we all welcome a system that will ensure and uphold the integrity of our police, will the Home Secretary reassure my constituents that the already overstretched local police budgets will not endure any further cost pressures as a result of today’s statement?

Theresa May: As I have explained in response to another hon. Member who was questioning me on that issue, what I have announced today is that we will be transferring certain pieces of work from police forces to the IPCC, so there will be less work in that area for professional
	standards departments and others to do in police forces. We will be talking about how resources should appropriately transfer to the IPCC to ensure that it covers the work that it, rather than police forces, will now do.

Robert Buckland: I welcome my right hon. Friend’s comments, and I support the move to transfer serious and sensitive cases to the IPCC. Will she ensure that the definition of “serious and sensitive” is as crystal clear as possible, so that the work of the IPCC can be enhanced and we can avoid potential ambiguities in determining what is serious and what is less serious?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. There is, of course, currently a working definition of “serious and sensitive”, but we need to ensure that in the new arrangements the definition is as clear as possible, so that there is no confusion between forces and the IPCC.

Michael McCann: The Home Secretary’s statement says that, “to introduce a sanction for officers who resign or retire to avoid dismissal, hearings will be taken to their conclusion, notwithstanding the officer’s departure from the force.” Will she confirm that any pension payment or severance payment due will be frozen until those proceedings end? If that does not happen, there is no point in introducing the first sanction.

Theresa May: As I said earlier, my statement does not cover any arrangements in relation to pensions. The issue of police officers subject to misconduct proceedings being able to resign or retire from a force and then those proceedings not being taken through because there was no sanction is one of the things that annoys the public considerably. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman makes a gesture; I am not quite sure how Hansard will interpret that, but I think that he is indicating, “Money.” Of course the sanction we propose potentially will have an impact on officers, because misconduct proceedings will be taken through to their conclusion. If they are found guilty of misconduct, they will be placed on the list of officers who have been struck off, and that will impede their ability, for example, to get a job in policing or a similar field abroad or in the United Kingdom.

Philip Hollobone: I declare my interest as a serving special constable with the British Transport police.
	Some of the best, most common-sense policing in our country is done by ordinary community beat bobbies at police constable rank, by police sergeants and by police inspectors—people who are not seeking promotion but who love their job and have been doing that job for many years, perhaps decades. Although it is right that scrutiny of the police improves all the time, I do not feel that these individuals get the pat on the back that they should get often enough. What can we do to recognise and reward those long-serving officers for the skills they bring to their job?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend may not be aware that one of the matters that has been referred back to the Police Negotiating Board and that will be considered by the College of Policing is rewarding individual officers’ skills and development. The first and second parts of
	the Winsor review proposed an interim arrangement that did indeed suggest that recognition for neighbourhood officers be looked into. The Police Arbitration Tribunal did not feel it was appropriate to take forward those proposals and I accepted the PAT’s recommendation, but further work will be done on ensuring that there is appropriate payment for skills that are developed.

Andy Sawford: One of my local police officers, Inspector Hillary, regularly tweets as he goes about his business in the area. Although the Home Secretary’s statement is at the hard end of accountability and particularly redress, does she agree that that everyday form of engagement and accountability is important to giving the public confidence in their local police officers, and does she welcome that initiative? She has avoided the question three times, but will she say specifically how much these changes will cost local constabularies? She is going to swipe money away—she says it is work, but that is people’s jobs. How much money is she going to swipe from Northamptonshire constabulary to pay for this?

Theresa May: Theuse of social media by police officers is one of the matters that HMIC considered when it was looking at integrity. Social media can be used extremely positively, and a number of forces are making active use of Twitter to get messages across to members of the public and interact with them. If Inspector Hillary is doing it in that way, I commend that officer. HMIC picked up some evidence of inappropriate use of Twitter, so it is important that forces make clear to officers what is and is not acceptable.
	I have answered the question about resources several times: we will be discussing with forces and the IPCC what the appropriate level of resources is and what it is therefore right to transfer from individual police forces. I have to say to the Opposition that the concept is a simple one: work is being done in police forces that in future will be done in the IPCC, so it is appropriate to transfer resources.

Peter Bone: As the third north Northamptonshire MP in a row to be called, may I associate myself with the kind comments about our local force made by the previous two Members? I congratulate the Home Secretary on her statement, not least because she made it first to the House and not to the media.
	I have found in my constituency surgeries that the thing that annoys people when they have a serious complaint about the police is not actually the investigation, but the fact that it is conducted by the home force—by Northamptonshire police. Will the Home Secretary assure the House that, in future, all serious cases will be investigated by people from outside the local force?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend has homed in precisely on the crucial change we are making. I too have looked at cases where people within a force investigated serious complaints against that force, and I think that that is not appropriate. The IPCC has not had the resources to do that job, but we will give it the resources it needs so that serious and sensitive allegations will be investigated by people from outside the force concerned.

Jim Shannon: I thank the Home Secretary for her statement to the House and welcome the announcement that the national register will be made available to police forces in other regions, in particular the PSNI. Will she confirm that the register will be made available in relation to other security positions, in particular civilian policing of Ministry of Defence installations in Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom?

Theresa May: The hon. Gentleman raises a specific point. I will reflect on that, if I may, but we will certainly discuss with the College of Policing the availability of the register of those who have been struck off and how that is most appropriately dealt with, and I shall take the hon. Gentleman’s point into account during those discussions.

Points of Order

Keith Vaz: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I rarely raise points of order, but this one is about a reply I received to a question I put to the Home Secretary, which was answered by the Minister for Immigration. I tabled a question asking how many times the Home Secretary has visited Romania and Bulgaria, and how many meetings she has had with Romanian and Bulgarian Ministers on the subject of immigration—a fairly standard question. Over the past 26 years, I have tabled questions to Ministers asking about their visits to other countries and have always received a factual reply. On this occasion, however, I received a reply stating that Home Office Ministers have meetings with a number of partners, but ending with these words:
	“As was the case with previous Administrations, it is not the Government’s practice to provide details of all such meetings.”—[Official Report, 5 February 2013; Vol. 558, c. 123W.]
	I have served in government and since receiving that answer I have talked with others who have served, and none has said that they refused to disclose a meeting between a Minister in this country and a Minister in a foreign country. I have friends in the Romanian and Bulgarian Parliaments and I can ask them to table questions asking how many times the Home Secretary has visited, but this is the bread and butter of the work of Members of Parliament.
	There is a question about whether Parliament has been misled, even inadvertently, by the answer given. I like the Minister for Immigration and I am sure that he would not have done that deliberately, but we should be able to ask Ministers how many times they have been to foreign countries and about the overall nature of discussions. We do not want to know what the Home Secretary did in Bucharest, whom she met or what she discussed; we just want to know how many times she has visited Romania and Bulgaria. That is a simple question to answer and it is one that every other Government Department is able to deal with. Mr Speaker, I seek your guidance on whether the answer is in order, or whether this is a new practice.

Mr Speaker: The response the right hon. Gentleman received has clearly provoked his curiosity and, in a notably mild-mannered Member of the House, a degree of consternation. I will happily offer a statement on the matter, but as the Home Secretary has courteously remained in the Chamber during the point of order relating to her Department, she is very welcome to offer a remark, if she so wishes.

Theresa May: indicated dissent.

Mr Speaker: She does not wish to do so. In that case, I will say to the right hon. Gentleman that the content of ministerial answers, notwithstanding the practice in previous Parliaments, is not a matter for the Chair. If he is dissatisfied with the answer he has received, or what he regards as the lack of an answer, he may wish to raise the matter with the Procedure Committee.
	I note in passing that, on the back of his nearly 26 consecutive years of service in the House, the right hon. Gentleman is as canny as most in the deployment
	of opportunities open to Members to eke out of Government information that is important to him. Moreover, as Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, he may be aware of other means by which Ministers may be held to account, and is perhaps in a position himself to apply those means. We will leave it there for now.

Catherine McKinnell: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am sure the Deputy Prime Minister did not intend to mislead the House when he incorrectly claimed, in response to my question at Deputy Prime Minister’s questions this morning regarding the local government settlement to Newcastle city council, that it was shutting all arts venues in Newcastle. That is blatantly not true. Owing to the very difficult local funding settlement, the council has proposed a variety of cuts to grants awarded to arts organisations, which represent roughly 15% of the funding stream, which is no doubt a difficult decision, but it is far from shutting all arts venues in the city. Given the alarm that such a statement could raise among my constituents in Newcastle upon Tyne, could you advise me on how best I may go about correcting the record in regard to the Deputy Prime Minister’s statement?

Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her point of order. I can say with confidence that the Deputy Prime Minister would not deliberately mislead the House, for that would be a serious transgression and I know that he would not commit it. Whether he has done so is not altogether obvious to me, but the Deputy Prime Minister will have heard, or if he has not done so, will very soon come to hear of the content of the hon. Lady’s point of order, and if in light of it he judges that the record needs to be corrected, it is open to him to do so. On top of that, she has put her concerns on the record and it is open to her, if she judges it necessary, to pursue the matter with the right hon. Gentleman in correspondence and in other ways. That is the best guidance I can give her for now.

Chi Onwurah: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it not the case that by asserting that Newcastle is closing all its arts venues, the Deputy Prime Minister is insulting the people of Newcastle and our long tradition of supporting the arts even in the worst of times and under the worst of Governments? Would it not therefore be in order for the Deputy Prime Minister to offer an apology to the people of Newcastle?

Mr Speaker: The question whether the people of Newcastle, whom we are not in a position now to consult, feel that they have been insulted or affronted is a matter for the people of Newcastle. In answer to the hon. Lady’s inquiry whether it would be in order for the Deputy Prime Minister to apologise, the answer is that it would be if he judged it appropriate to do so, but it is not for me to decree that he should. I hope that is helpful. All points of order on the matter have now been exhausted.

Gift Vouchers and Insolvency

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Michael McCann: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Insolvency Act 1986 to make purchasers of gift vouchers preferential creditors during the administration of a company; and for connected purposes.
	Christmas has been described as the season when we buy this year’s gifts with next year’s money. HMV nearly rewrote that proposition, as the season when we buy this year’s gifts with next year’s money, and end up with no gift. I bring forward this proposal for consideration in light of the recent experience of all our constituents in relation to the well publicised case of HMV and gift vouchers. For a short time HMV refused to honour gift vouchers. That position was quickly reversed by the receivers after a public outcry, and gift vouchers will now be accepted, but it led me to look into the matter in more detail.
	The issuing of vouchers is widespread in the retail world. Last month we sadly saw the demise of another respected company in our country. The photographic firm Jessops also issued gift vouchers, and on the administrators’ website, the following message is displayed:
	“If you are owed money by Jessops (e.g. due to vouchers not honoured, deposits, returns, pre-paid courses etc) you can register an unsecured creditor claim with the administrators using the form below. Please note, there is no guarantee that there will be any payment to unsecured creditors of the company. If there is a dividend paid, this will be in many months time and is likely to be only a small proportion of the claimed amount.”
	The last two sentences of the message are emboldened, with the intention, it appears to me, to deter claims. The message is that people can claim if they want, but they probably will not get anything for months, and even if they eventually do, it will be peanuts.
	Jessops and HMV are by no means the only companies in this country to issue vouchers. Every high street or out-of-town shopping chain has its own scheme. Let us remember that in 2012 other high street names went to the wall, including Comet, JJB Sports, Game, Peacocks and Blacks Leisure. Supermarkets now have racks of vouchers that shoppers can choose from. Some of the names have had difficulties in the past, but are thankfully back in business and offering vouchers to the public. We might expect that names such as Marks and Spencer will be with us for ever, but who would have predicted a year ago what would happen to some of the well known names that I mentioned earlier?
	HMV, for example, was a solid high street name, established in 1921, with its first store in Oxford street, which grew to a business of 235 UK stores, a number of live music venues and around 4,350 UK employees. That is a key point, because if HMV can go under, so can any of the other big names that invite us to part with our money in return for a promise that they will honour future purchases that we wish to make. The HMV vouchers were estimated to be worth around £7 million, and the company’s debts totalled £176 million.
	The gift voucher industry is worth a reported £4 billion per year, and in the first half of last year that business grew by around 5%. That is a significant contribution to the retail sector, worth around £220 billion a year, and means that consumers are now advancing the sector around 2% of the value of sales in the form of prepaid vouchers. That is clearly a benefit to the cash flow of retail businesses, but it raises the question of what security consumers get in return. What guarantee do they get that, if they part with their money in this way, they are going to be in any stronger position than those punters who on Derby day a few years ago placed their bets on the hill with a certain John Batten, only to find that he had run off with all their money, without paying any bets out?
	The law in relation to insolvency does not seem to provide any protection at all. My aim in introducing the Bill is to strengthen the rights of consumers in this area so that if and when companies unfortunately fail, consumers are not left high and dry, or at the mercy of administrators who decide whether or not to honour the commitments entered into when those vouchers were sold. We should remember, too, that most vouchers are bought as gifts for family members, and it is particularly unfortunate that in those circumstances a gift meant to mark a birthday or other significant event ends up disappearing into the miasma of administration.
	It has been pointed out that there must have been people in charge of the companies concerned who knew that the writing was on the wall before the final collapse, and who must also have known that there was a very strong possibility that vouchers would not be honoured, yet the companies continued to sell them. Leaving aside the morality of such decisions, one must consider the negative impact on the rest of the industry. The mere suggestion of this amendment to the legislation has prompted a response from those involved in insolvency, which would give greater consideration to consumer protection. The Association of Business Recovery Professionals, known as R3, has been in touch with me with suggestions for ways in which consumers could be protected in the event of a business collapsing, including purchase of protection bonds by the company, putting money into a separate client account, or including responsibility for vouchers as part of the transfer of business obligations.
	R3 does not seem to have come down in favour of any of these proposals, and even if it does back one or more of them, it will take some time for the proposals to come into effect, but something should be done now. This amendment to the legislation would provide for an
	additional category of preferential creditors who, in the winding up of any company, go higher up the queue for the distribution of any remaining assets. Those categories currently include a range of tax, excise and national insurance liabilities, and remuneration of employees, including holiday pay. But the ordinary consumers, who have given their money to the company in good faith, are not currently included in the list of preferential creditors.
	That seems a regrettable omission, no doubt accounted for by the considerable growth of this form of payment in the past decade or so. Certainly when the Insolvency Act was conceived in 1986, the voucher industry was barely in its infancy, and may not therefore have seemed a sufficient issue to be included in the priority list. However, that is no excuse for failing to prioritise the issue now. By way of analogy, only last week, the Trading Standards Institute announced that its approved codes of practice for consumers will require retailers
	“to ensure that the gift cards…are protected in the event that the business fails.”
	The TSI has accepted that there has been a lacuna in its provisions on vouchers and we should also accept that the provisions on insolvency need to be updated to reflect the current retail environment.
	I seek the support of the House in bringing forward legislation that will rectify the situation. The advantage will be greater confidence that, when the inconceivable happens, there will be some protection for the unfortunate consumer. Administrators may well become more willing to see vouchers honoured, which should help to restore confidence in the sector.
	I do not claim that this measure alone will provide all the necessary guarantees to reassure those who buy vouchers in good faith, but it would be a start. The voucher industry itself needs to do more, but a modest change in insolvency legislation could provide a fillip to the economically pressed British public. It will reflect changes taking place elsewhere—in trading standards codes, for example—and show that the House takes seriously the concerns expressed by constituents of Members from all parties about the issue.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Ordered,
	That Mr Michael McCann, Pauline Latham, Jeremy Lefroy, Steve Rotherham, Hugh Bayley, Mr Ronnie Campbell, Mr Ian Davidson and Chris White present the Bill.
	Mr Michael McCann accordingly presented the Bill.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 22 March 2013, and to be printed (Bill 136).

Opposition Day
	 — 
	[17th( )Allotted Day]
	 — 
	Horsemeat

Mr Speaker: We now come to the main business. The first of the two Opposition day debates is on a motion about horsemeat in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.
	Before I call the shadow Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to move the motion, I should say that given the number of people seeking to contribute from the Back Benches, the likelihood is that there will be a limit on Back-Bench speeches of eight minutes or thereabouts. However, the length of that limit depends on the length of the Front-Bench speeches. My successor in the Chair or I will give a ruling on the matter when we see how long Front Benchers have taken to develop their points.

Mary Creagh: I shall try to bear your comments in mind, Mr Speaker.
	I beg to move,
	That this House notes that up to 100 per cent horsemeat has been found in supermarket and branded processed meat products and that horsemeat has been found at the premises of a UK meat processing plant; notes with concern that seven horses which tested positive for phenylbutazone (bute) contamination have entered the human food chain, including one in England; further notes that meat supplied to UK prisons, labelled Halal, has tested positive for pork DNA; recognises that the Irish government and Northern Irish Executive have called in the police and specialist fraud units to tackle the problem of horsemeat adulteration; further recognises that thousands of jobs depend on consumer confidence in the UK and Irish meat industries; and calls on the Government to ensure that police and fraud specialists investigate the criminal networks involved in horsemeat adulteration, to speed up the Food Standards Agency official tests so that results are back in 14 days and restore consumer confidence in the meat industry by working with the food industry and other EU member states and EU institutions to define new testing, labelling and traceability standards for the meat industry to protect consumers from fraud.
	It is four weeks to the day since the Irish authorities told the UK Government that they had discovered horsemeat in burgers, and 10 million suspect burgers were withdrawn. Products from Tesco, Iceland, Co-op, Lidl and Aldi have all tested positive for horsemeat. The burgers came from Silvercrest Foods in Ireland and Dalepak Hambleton in Yorkshire, subsidiaries of the ABP Food Group. A third company—Liffey Meats in County Cavan in Ireland—was also found to be supplying products with horse DNA.

Ian Paisley Jnr: Will the hon. Lady take this opportunity to correct comments that she made in column 612 of yesterday’s Hansard? She said that 70,000 horses are unaccounted for in Northern Ireland and being sold in the lucrative horsemeat trade. That is not the case; the evidence relates to the Republic of Ireland, not Northern Ireland. The Ulster Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals is a responsible organisation and made the claims not about Northern Ireland but about the Republic. Will she join me in a cross-party promotion of Northern Ireland’s red meat sector, which produces among the best, most traced and
	tastiest food in this country? I would be delighted if she agreed that our border is more secure than a slip of the tongue on the Front Bench.

Mr Speaker: We are deeply obliged to the hon. Gentleman, who has now made his speech.

Mary Creagh: I am happy for the record to be put straight on that; in the heat of the debate, I made a slip of the tongue. I am the granddaughter of a cattle farmer in Northern Ireland, so it is incumbent on me to recommend the meat of the good cows of Northern Ireland.

Anne McIntosh: I am most grateful to my fellow Yorkshire MP for giving way. May I ask her to correct another part of the record? I think she will find that no contamination was found at Dalepak in north Yorkshire.
	I congratulate the hon. Lady on the motion, but it lacks one thing—whether on purpose or by accident, I do not know. There is absolutely no reference to the British meat trade; its fresh, processed or frozen parts have not been implicated. We do not want any collateral damage to our excellent trade, which meets the highest standards of traceability, welfare and good food.

Mary Creagh: I believe that traces of horse DNA were found in products that emanated from the Dalepak plant in Hambleton; if the hon. Lady has information to the contrary, I am sure that she will take the opportunity to put the record straight. The British meat industry is not mentioned in the motion because now is not the time to be talking down the British meat industry, as she says.
	Burger King, which sells a million burgers a week, gave “absolute assurances” that its burgers were fine; two weeks later they tested positive. Representatives of TRG, or the Restaurant Group, which runs Frankie and Benny’s, revealed last Monday that they had discovered a batch of meat at Rangeland Foods that tested positive for horse.
	Furthermore, last Monday, the Irish authorities discovered a 900 kg block of mostly horsemeat sitting in the cold store of a Northern Ireland burger producer, Freeza Meats. The meat had been impounded during a routine inspection five months ago. I congratulate the inspectors from Newry and Mourne council, who on a routine inspection had concerns about that meat’s packaging and quality and about the absence of labelling on some products. If meat does not have a label, we have absolutely no idea where it has come from.

Ben Bradshaw: I congratulate my hon. Friend on her leadership on this issue. She and the highly respected Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee have said that they would not currently eat processed beef products. Does she share my amazement that Ministers are still encouraging people to do so?

Mary Creagh: A range of mixed messages has been coming out of the Government. The Secretary of State said on Friday that he would be happy to eat processed beef products, but said on Sunday that doing so could be injurious to human health—[Interruption.] Well,
	he said that substances could be found that could be injurious to human health; I remember him saying it on the Iain Dale radio show.
	The issue is difficult because yesterday the chief medical officer said that testing had never been done, because nobody wants to test humans to find out who is susceptible to the serious blood disorder aplastic anaemia—of course, it would be completely unethical and impossible to conduct such a test. The Government are in a difficult position. They may be trying to minimise public concern, but there is no safe dose of bute in humans.

Bill Wiggin: Does the hon. Lady agree that as the responsibility now lies with the retailers to help restore confidence, there should be an aggressive campaign by all of them to assure their customers that all the beef that they buy from now on will be British? What more can be done so that customers have confidence that they really are eating British beef?

Mary Creagh: The beef on sale right now in UK supermarkets is probably of a higher quality than ever. Lots of local and independent butchers have seen a spike in trade lately as a result of what has happened.
	I said that there was no safe dose of bute for humans. I am not a medical expert, but bute can cause serious adverse side effects so should be consumed only under medical supervision—[Interruption.] Government Front Benchers are chuntering already, Mr Speaker; that is not a good sign.
	The positive test on Freeza Meats led the inspectors to the meat trader, Martin McAdam, who admitted to buying the meat from a UK company, Flexi Foods, in Hull last July. A spokesman for Mr McAdam said:
	“That shipment was the first one that came to light. Subsequently other tests identified other shipments of meat.”
	He has identified the names of other companies involved, and on Friday I received that information. These UK food companies may or may not have supplied suspect meat products to Mr McAdam, but while there is a question mark over them, the food industry has a right to have that information.
	On Friday I wrote to the Secretary of State offering to share that information with him. When he replied to me yesterday, he urged me to hand it over to the police and to the Food Standards Agency, as I already had done, and I assume that he now has it. On Saturday, however, after a conversation with one of the food industry representatives, I realised that the Secretary of State had not revealed the names of those firms to the food industry at the meeting. Yesterday, when I asked him why not, he failed to answer. Why did he not tell the food industry where to look? Why has he not released those names to the public so that we can have full transparency on this problem? If the Government want the industry to test on the basis of risk, why did he not share the names of the companies at Saturday’s meeting?
	In the FSA advice to the public sector issued at 10 o’clock on Sunday night, the Secretary of State laid the responsibility for food safety squarely on other people’s shoulders. He said:
	“We are reminding public bodies (schools, prisons, hospitals, armed forces) of their responsibility for their own food contracts. We expect them to have rigorous procurement procedures in place with reputable suppliers.”
	If he knows that there are problems with some UK-based companies, why has he not told head teachers, local authorities and hospital bosses about the companies that are being investigated? I am happy to give way now if he would like to intervene.

Owen Paterson: I am very happy to do so. I have been restraining myself, Mr Speaker, because of your injunction to be as brief as possible. The Food Standards Agency, set up by the hon. Lady’s party when in government, has been quite clear in giving advice to all those who supply to public institutions such as prisons, schools and hospitals. As I said yesterday in my statement and will say again in a few minutes, food suppliers have the ultimate responsibility for the quality of what they sell.

Mary Creagh: We are none the wiser about whether the Secretary of State knows the names of these companies, which prompts the question of whether the FSA has told him or whether he has asked it. Perhaps he will clarify that.
	On Friday the FSA said that the police were involved, and I thought that things were under control. However, on Friday night the Met police said that they had had talks with the FSA but there was no live criminal investigation. Can the Secretary of State tell us what action the FSA has taken against these companies? Has it been into their premises and seized evidence, and why have the police not been called in? If there are no problems with these companies, will he say so clearly now, on the record?
	Last Thursday, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs announced its statutory testing regime, with 28 local councils purchasing and testing eight samples each. However, the Secretary of State cannot seriously expect people to wait 10 weeks for the results. Does he think that surveying just 224 products across the country rises to the challenge of this scandal when he has asked the supermarkets to test thousands of their products by Friday? How many of the 10 million withdrawn burgers have been tested? Are there any plans to test them now? If they had been tested when they were withdrawn, Ministers would able to reassure us or tell us the extent of this scandal, but because they were paralysed by fear or incompetence, or both, we are still in the dark. Will the Secretary of State confirm that only a fraction of the supermarket tests will be completed and reported by this Friday?
	Will the Secretary of State tell the House how many products the large public sector catering suppliers will test and how many product lines members of the British Meat Processors Association will test? Yesterday I asked him which members of the British Hospitality Association and the British Retail Consortium have withdrawn their products as a precaution and whether any of them have withdrawn products that may have gone to schools and hospitals. Is he prepared to answer those questions today?

Angus MacNeil: As a crofter and a producer, I should refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am pleased to say that the butchers in Stornoway have seen an upturn in trade as a result of this problem. It surely beggars belief that it has happened given all the
	tagging that has been going on in the industry. When I send a couple of beasts—lambs—to my cousin to be slaughtered, the vet has to see them. Surely we should now be pressurising the supermarkets and major retailers to stock from as close to source locally as possible—the best of Scottish lamb, beef, or whatever—to make sure that we do not have a repetition of this situation.

Mary Creagh: I share the hon. Gentleman’s concerns for the British meat industry. As he says, we have one of the strongest food traceability systems in the world. The British Retail Consortium’s food traceability system and authorisation of processing plant is recognised to global standards. What I worry about is the very large worldwide web that has led to some Findus products coming in from Romania via Cyprus, the Netherlands and a company in south-west France. It is inexplicable to me why that meat is being transported to all those different areas and what is happening there. Every time it is transported, there are moments of risk when it can be interfered with. That is where the problems arise in the meat trade rather than at the stage that the hon. Gentleman mentioned.

Brian H Donohoe: For many years, we have been campaigning in Ayrshire to export many of these products to places such as China, because manufacturing in this sector in China is always a bit suspect and people there will not accept these types of manufactured goods. I believe that the situation we now face will affect that trade. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is an important element in resolving this situation?

Mary Creagh: I do agree. The British food industry is a £12 billion industry, and hundreds of thousands of UK jobs depend on it. I know from talking to farmers across the country that they are trying to export their animals, including pigs to China, and various products all over the place, and that people are coming here to look at some of our excellent rare breeds of beef that work particularly well in particular types of climate. This is obviously a very worrying time for the UK food industry.

Jim Shannon: The hon. Lady mentioned the upsurge in trade in local butchers over the past week. Some 30% of butchers across the whole United Kingdom had an increase in usage over the past weekend. Does she think that the traceability that is currently present within the whole United Kingdom—England, Wales, Scotland and, in particular, Northern Ireland—should be the key factor in our being able to have good products on the butchers’ shelves and in the supermarkets every week?

Mary Creagh: I agree that good traceability will be key in solving this crisis. I look forward to the Secretary of State putting in place robust measures with the entire food supply chain to make sure that this type of scandal cannot hit our industry again.
	Yesterday the Secretary of State talked about inheriting the Food Standards Agency and our food regulatory system. He is right—he did—but unfortunately his Government broke it up in 2010.

David Heath: No, we did not.

Mary Creagh: The hon. Gentleman was not in the Department at that time.
	The FSA website has chapter and verse on what happened. It says that in July 2010
	“the food authenticity programme was transferred from the…(FSA) to Defra along with food labelling and composition policy not related to food safety or nutrition. The food authenticity programme supports the enforcement of food labelling and standards legislation through the development of methods that can determine whether foods are correctly labelled. Food authenticity…simply refers to whether the food purchased by the consumer matches its description.”
	I would say that consumers who are purchasing beef burgers that later turn out to be horse would fall within that remit. The Government removed the budget and brought the 25 officials responsible for labelling the content of food back into DEFRA. In response to my parliamentary questions, we find that there are now just 12 officials working on food authenticity in DEFRA. The Secretary of State is responsible for the labelling that tells us what is in our food, the Department of Health is responsible for nutritional labelling, and the FSA for allergen labelling. That is why the official food sampling survey is a joint DEFRA-FSA survey, is it not? Will the Secretary of State confirm that this will be the very first survey of product content that his Department has carried out since his Government removed compositional labelling responsibilities from the Food Standards Agency in June 2010?
	This ideological Government, who want to deregulate everything, actually created a bureaucratic nightmare for the food industry when they fragmented the FSA’s responsibility for labelling, because now manufacturers have to go to the Department of Health to look at calories, fat, salt and sugar, to the FSA to look at allergens, and to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for what it should say on the tin.
	Has the loss of more than 700 trading standards officers in three years made this type of consumer fraud more widespread and less likely to be detected? Is the Secretary of State confident that the FSA’s Meat Hygiene Service, which has just been merged into the FSA, can be cut by £12 million over the four years from 2010 to 2014 without affecting its ability to detect breaches of the law or to tackle a disease outbreak?
	On abattoirs, at DEFRA questions nearly three weeks ago, I asked the Minister with responsibility for food, the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath), whom I am glad to see in his place, about problems with the horse passport system. I was concerned that horses contaminated with bute were being slaughtered in UK abattoirs and entering the human food chain. Of the nine UK horses that tested positive for bute in 2012, one was stopped, five went to France, two to the Netherlands and one to the UK. Has the Minister considered the possibility that horses are going from UK abattoirs into the food chain?
	The FSA sampled 156 horses for bute out of the 9,405 horses that were slaughtered in UK abattoirs in 2012. Nine of those horses tested positive, which is a 6% positive rate. If we scale that up to the 9,000 figure, we will see that it suggests that more than 500 horses contaminated with bute may have entered the UK human
	food chain last year. I raised that point two and a half weeks ago, but received a garbled response from the Minister. I am glad to see that he has stopped burbling now.

Angus MacNeil: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way again; she is being very kind. What is her view on placing dye on meats that are not meant to go into the human food chain? That would give a clear visual signal and would probably prevent an awful lot of meats from finding their way into the human food chain, whether they come from the knacker’s yard or any other source.

Mary Creagh: I do not know how condemned meat is currently dealt with, but I have heard tales of people bleaching meat. Whatever happens to this meat, when it is condemned it needs to be permanently removed from the food chain. Clearly, something much more significant needs to happen to it, but the treatment of condemned meat is something that I am not fully aware of at the moment. I am sure I will learn a lot more about it in the next 24 hours.
	As the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) said, there is evidence of an illegal trade in horses from Ireland to the UK and a programme on the subject will be aired tonight. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals has also contacted me to say that it has seen horses that have been double microchipped and double passported in order to “clean” the horse. It has also given me examples of horses being microchipped at auction—many horses do not contain a microchip—and given a clean passport. Microchips can be bought for as little as 12p on the internet and it is clearly not an offence to buy one. If a microchip is put into a horse and a passport obtained from one of the 75 societies that can issue horse passports in the UK, the new passport can be linked to the microchip so that the horse looks like it has a clean history.
	The increase in the number of horses and the decrease in horse prices mean that putting horses into the food chain is attractive. At the abattoir, Government inspectors check only the microchip with the passport, and if they correspond, the horse is slaughtered and allowed into the food chain. I am glad that, as of yesterday, all horses being slaughtered in UK abattoirs are now being tested for bute, but the Minister should have acted on that two weeks ago, when I first raised the issue in the House. The passport system is clearly not working as it should. The lack of a central database and DEFRA’s decision to stop funding it in 2012 only adds to the lack of visibility of where the horses are and their bute status. Does the Secretary of State regret scrapping the national equine database to save £200,000? [Interruption.] The Minister says no—I think he might regret that. [Interruption.] I look forward to hearing what the Government’s traceability system actually is.

Caroline Nokes: On working with horse passport agencies and the national equine database, does the hon. Lady agree that NED was actually far more of a competition, progeny and pedigree record, and that it would not have been possible to find out whether a horse on it had bute?

Mary Creagh: The national equine database was as the hon. Lady describes it, but the fact that it no longer exists does not help with tracking and tracing where horses have gone. There were, I think, more than 1.2 million horses on it. I will need to check the numbers, because that figure is from memory—[Interruption]—and with noises off. Michael Frayn could not have written this farce any better. My point is that without the national database, which would have eventually had a link to the microchips, the opportunities for fraud are much easier. Another issue is that of bute not being written into animal records. That needs to be looked at again.
	Government Members have talked about a ban on EU imports. It has been very convenient to blame the Poles and the Romanians, but so far neither country has found anything. The risk of a Romanian horse being given expensive veterinary medicine such as bute is smaller than it is in countries such as the UK and Ireland.

William McCrea: The question of whether the animal has been injected with something might be a point for discussion. However, whenever people go into a shop for a beef burger, they are not looking for a horse burger, so it has to be what it says on the packet. In my opinion—I trust that this is also the hon. Lady’s opinion—it is not meat produced in the UK, but meat from outside that causes concern for many consumers. Should not all meat coming into the United Kingdom be quarantined and tested before being released into the food chain?

Mary Creagh: We need a proportionate response. The problem with the meat found in the Northern Ireland freezer is that there was no label on it at all. In such cases, how can we say where the meat has come from? That is the problem with that approach. On quarantining and testing meat, we need to make sure that what is coming in is exactly what it says on the label.
	During yesterday’s statement, I thought I was going to see unicorns dancing over a blue moon as the hon. Members for Stone (Mr Cash) and for Christchurch (Mr Chope), who are noted, famous Eurosceptics, called for more EU regulation and asked what the European Commission was doing and whether the Health Commissioner was in control of the situation. It has been an interesting revelation for Members of all parties to see the important role that European Union regulations play.
	There is an issue with large quantities of horsemeat coming in from countries such as Canada and Mexico. Kilos and tonnes of the meat come in without any traceability or any guarantee about what the horses have had injected into them.

William McCrea: One thing we can be sure of is that the meat did not come from Northern Ireland. Our traceability is second to none. It was the alertness of Newry and Mourne council that got it stopped in Newry. The meat was not from Northern Ireland, so it had to come from outside. We need to find out exactly where it came from, who was responsible and who acted in a criminal way, and then bring them to book.

Mary Creagh: I could not agree more, which is why I have questioned the Secretary of State so closely on the matter of the UK meat trading companies that have
	been named. The Secretary of State waited three and a half weeks to meet representatives of the food industry and then brought them in on a Saturday. They have now had two meetings in just four days.
	Our regulatory services protect consumers and our food industry. They allow it to export all over the world. Their job has been made much more difficult by the Government’s decision to fragment the responsibilities of the Food Standards Agency. Members on both sides of the House want the British public to have confidence that the food that they buy in the shops and that comes from our producers is correctly labelled, legal and safe. The Secretary of State is responsible for ensuring that it is. It just is not good enough to say, “We don’t know what’s in your food, but whatever it is, we guarantee that it’s safe to eat.” The British people deserve so much better than that.

Owen Paterson: It is good to be back at the Dispatch Box to talk about this subject for the second day running. I congratulate the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) on persuading her party hierarchy to bring this important issue to the Floor of the House of Commons again. I made an oral statement to the House yesterday, in which I set out the facts about what had happened and the ongoing investigations into those incidents. I am pleased to take this opportunity to update the House on further developments.
	Since yesterday, Tesco has confirmed that a frozen spaghetti bolognese from the same factory as the other withdrawn Comigel products has tested positive for horsemeat. The product has been withdrawn as a precaution. That result does not suggest that there is a new source of illegal horsemeat.
	I am meeting senior figures from the UK food chain at the Institute of Grocery Distribution later today with the chairman of the Food Standards Agency, the noble Lord Rooker, to whom I spoke this morning. I can also confirm that the meeting with key European Ministers and the Commission that I proposed is taking place in Brussels tomorrow evening. I will be speaking to the Dutch Minister, Sharon Dijksma, and the Polish Minister, Stanislaw Kalemba, later today.
	In my statement yesterday, I set out the action that I have taken to ensure that retailers, meat manufacturers and processors are carrying out urgent testing of processed beef products and making their test results public.
	It is clear from my conversations with European Ministers and Commissioner Borg in recent days that the European Commission recognises the urgency of the incidents.

Brian H Donohoe: When the Secretary of State meets his counterparts in Europe, will he raise the problems that I raised earlier, which he would have heard if he had been in his place, about exporting from our marketplace to the new markets in the far east?

Owen Paterson: The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to note that I jotted down his constituency and was going to mention his point later in my speech, but I will do so now. He raises a pertinent point. It is vital that we get to the bottom of this matter as fast as possible, because we
	have very strict traceability in this country, very rigorous production systems and very high quality, and we do not want any slur to be cast on that or any attempt to export our excellent products to be slowed down by incidents that so far appear to be the result of criminal acts carried out abroad.

Angus MacNeil: Many farmers, crofters and primary producers have an onerous burden of responsibility and bureaucracy. I seek assurances that this matter will not be used as an excuse for a cloak-and-dagger increase in that already onerous burden. The traceability should retain the vote of confidence and we should not add to the burdens.

Owen Paterson: The hon. Gentleman is right that we must make absolutely sure that we do not create further regulatory burdens. What we need to do is to make the checks more relevant to the products. I will come to that point in a moment.

Mary Creagh: It is great to hear this most Eurosceptic of Secretaries of State doing his bit for European co-operation in this area. Will he press his European colleagues to carry out random testing in their countries like that being carried out by UK supermarkets?

Owen Paterson: The shadow Secretary of State is again ahead of the game with respect to what I will say in my speech. I said yesterday in my statement that I have a gut feeling—actually, it is a clear belief—that too much is taken on trust in the current system. Too often, it is taken on trust that when a truck is loaded, the contents of the pallets are marked on the manifest and the certificate. From that point on, nothing is looked at. I agree entirely with the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for South Antrim (Dr McCrea) that we need to do more testing. I discussed that yesterday and again this morning with the noble Lord Rooker. When this is all over, there will be a process of learning the lessons. I will be keen to establish more systematic testing of products so that we actually look at the material. That answers some of the hon. Lady’s questions about the freezer plant in Northern Ireland. At the moment, the system is very much paper-based and too much is taken on trust.

Ian Paisley Jnr: Does the Secretary of State agree that one of the lessons that has already been learned is that it is a fallacy that people can have cheap food and quality food? The two do not go hand in hand. We have to educate the marketplace and the consumer that if people want good-quality, tasty food, they have to pay for it. Chasing the notion of cheap food, which many supermarkets have done irresponsibly, will be the ruination of a vital industry.

Owen Paterson: The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point, but I think that we have to be careful. There are citizens in this country who want to buy a product for speed and convenience, but who do not want to pay a premium price. They deserve exactly the same rigorous quality standards and exactly the same adherence to what is on the label as everybody else. If they buy a cheaper product marked “processed beef”, they should jolly well get processed beef. They should be as aggrieved as anyone who buys the most expensive sirloin steak if what they buy is not what it says on the label. If people
	in this country buy a cheap product, they should get a good product that conforms to the label. That is an important principle for consumers and one that I have discussed with the retailers.

Anne McIntosh: Before the meetings tomorrow, will the Secretary of State ensure that product checks have been carried out on exports from other European countries that have come into Britain? Will he take the best legal advice from the Department or the top Government lawyers on the possibility of using the Cassis de Dijon case as the basis of turning down inferior products until such time as it is shown whether they are being passed off as something that they are not? That would be entirely legal under the Food Safety Act 1990 and EU food labelling regulations.

Owen Paterson: I am grateful to the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee for her question. I bow to her knowledge on these matters as a former Member of the European Parliament. I discussed that matter briefly with Commissioner Borg yesterday. He confirmed what I had said over the weekend: unless there is a threat to public health and safety, there are no grounds for stopping imports. Fraudulent labelling and mislabelling are quite wrong, but he made it clear during our brief conversation, on which I hope to elaborate tomorrow, that those were not grounds for preventing the importation of a material within the European Union. However, my hon. Friend makes an interesting point, and I will check the details of the regulations that she mentions. I promise that I will raise her point in the discussions tomorrow.

Jake Berry: The point is that when lasagne that are sold as beef contain up to 100% horsemeat, there is a clear danger of contamination by bute in those products. As such, surely they would satisfy the test of being a danger to human health.

Owen Paterson: My hon. Friend raises an important question that came up yesterday. We have to take note of the clear advice given by the chief medical officer yesterday:
	“It’s understandable that people will be concerned, but it is important to emphasise that even if bute is found to be present at low levels, there is a very low risk indeed that it would cause any harm to health”.
	The meat content of the lasagne that was mentioned at the weekend, for example, was as low as 15%, so one would have to eat an extraordinarily large amount of this material to ingest a quantity of bute that would exceed the warning of the chief medical officer.

Russell Brown: rose—

Tom Harris: rose—

Owen Paterson: I am conscious that other Members want to get in, but I will press on and make a little more progress.
	It is clear that complex cross-European supply networks are involved in these incidents. I understand that Comigel was supplying customers in 16 European countries.
	That is why I have pressed hard for a European response. Yesterday, my Irish, French and Romanian counterparts, and the Commissioner, were enthusiastic and united in wanting to work closely with us. I look forward to taking those discussions further tomorrow in Brussels.
	I have made it clear to the food industry that I expect to see meaningful results from its product testing by this Friday. The results will be published as they become available.

Andrew Gwynne: May I push the Secretary of State further on testing? Has he ordered the testing of gelatine and gelatine-based products for horse DNA? If horse DNA is found in gelatine, it would be a serious contamination of the human food chain, particularly because it would extend to food such as children’s sweets.

Owen Paterson: The hon. Gentleman asks a good question. However, like many Opposition Members, he is asking me to impinge on the operational independence of the Food Standards Agency, which makes decisions on the details. [Hon. Members: “Is the FSA testing that?”] I have made it clear to the food industry and the FSA that I expect to see meaningful results from the tests by Friday. I repeat what I said yesterday: consumers need to be confident that food is what it says on the label. It is outrageous that consumers appear to have been misled by what appears to be a deliberate fraud.
	It is important to distinguish between test results that indicate trace levels of DNA of an undeclared species and gross adulteration. So far, the results indicating flagrant adulteration have been limited to those products from the Silvercrest plant in Ireland and Comigel. It is too early to say whether they are indicative of a wider problem or isolated examples of such fraud. Either way, any case of fraud on the consumer is unacceptable, and I want all such cases to be pursued vigorously and those responsible brought to justice.

William McCrea: Will the Secretary of State assure me and the House on one point? The financial burden for any extra testing should not be placed on producers within the United Kingdom. They are not to blame, so they should not carry the burden.

Owen Paterson: The European law is clear that retailers are key. They are responsible for the quality and validity of what they say is in the box and what is on the label, and for ensuring that they conform. The prime responsibility is with the retailer.

Andrew Gwynne: rose—

Russell Brown: rose—

Owen Paterson: I will give way to the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Mr Brown), because he tried to intervene earlier.

Russell Brown: The Secretary of State has spoken of criminal and fraudulent activity, as he did yesterday. There are many cases of contamination. Is he indicating that we are witnessing organised criminal activity?

Owen Paterson: That is a perfectly valid question, but it is too early to tell. I will probably learn more in meetings tomorrow. Minister Le Foll is investigating in France to try to get to the bottom of things. The French are checking invoices, manifests, trucking times and arrival times to find out what is behind the contamination. As I said yesterday, Minister Constantin was emphatic that the procedures in Romania are correct, which is why I made a call this afternoon to the Dutch Minister. We know that something somewhere is going horribly wrong, and we are determined to work closely to get to the bottom of it.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Owen Paterson: I am looking at the clock and must push on.
	The criminal justice system in the UK and across Europe is taking this very seriously. We are ready to act in whatever way is justified by the emerging facts. I shall repeat myself, because it is important that Opposition Members understand this: overall, food safety is a European competence. Council regulation 178/2002 confirms that food operators have primary responsibility for food safety and quality. In the UK, under the system this Government inherited, the independent Food Standards Agency is the lead enforcement authority for food safety and authenticity.

Dave Watts: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Owen Paterson: I will give way one more time, then I must push on.

Dave Watts: The Secretary of State seems to be placing a great deal of faith in the FSA. Given that it has failed in this case, what confidence does he have that it can get its act together and ensure that people’s health is protected?

Owen Paterson: That is absolutely glorious! Labour Members are attacking their own creation. That is one of the institutions they created and of which they are most proud. In previous food crises, they said politicians must not be involved and that there should be an independent agency. However, the hon. Gentleman is attacking the independent FSA, which is run effectively by the noble Lord Rooker, who I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows well, because they are ex-colleagues. As a coalition, we are co-operating to see whether we can make the system work. There are improvements to make—I will come to those—but we are working with the FSA and respecting its independence. That is why, while the issue was a question was of DNA and before the step change of the Findus case, we left the independent agency to take the prime lead. It is not appropriate for me to infringe on its independence.
	Many cases of poor food hygiene and food adulteration are dealt with effectively by that route. The police would take the lead only if there is evidence of serious, organised criminality in the UK. The FSA identified that such criminality was potentially involved and last week alerted both the Metropolitan police and Europol. The FSA’s investigations are ongoing. The police are well aware of the developing situation, but at what point they take the lead is a judgment for them and the FSA, based on the
	evidence. It is not a decision for me or the shadow Secretary of State. We must respect the independence of the police.
	The Opposition have made a great deal of the risks to consumers in Europe of horses slaughtered in the UK because of possible residues of the drug bute. In line with advice from the chief medical officer, the Government have tightened the system we inherited. Last week, we moved to 100% testing of horses slaughtered at abattoirs, and accelerated the rate at which tests can be completed. As of yesterday, no carcase will be released unless and until it has tested negative for bute. However, I remind the House that, to the extent that some carcases with bute residues may have in the past entered the human food chain in Europe, the chief medical officer’s advice is that, even if bute is found to be present at low levels, there is a very low risk indeed that it will cause any harm to health.
	The British food and farming industries are two of this country’s great success stories. I will not let them be talked down. The food industry has continued to grow during the current difficult economic conditions. Its export performance in particular has been strong. In 2010, the UK food and drink industry contributed £90 billion gross value to the economy, and in 2011 achieved exports worth £18.2 billion, of which meat and meat products accounted for £1.7 billion.
	Food and drink manufacturing is the UK’s largest manufacturing sector, employing some 3.2 million people. Jobs in the UK depend in part on consumer confidence in processed meat products. That is why I have emphasised the importance of food businesses taking rapid steps to reassure consumers and overseas markets by testing all their processed beef products and making the results public. Transparency is key to confidence.
	The Government will do whatever necessary to ensure that British farmers and food manufacturers have access to export markets. That includes ensuring that British food is recognised for its rigorous standards and traceability, and that our producers do not get a bad reputation owing to the Europe-wide horsemeat incidents—the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr Donohoe) was spot on in that respect.
	The food industry also needs to look to the future and embrace new technologies.

Neil Parish: The Secretary of State made the point yesterday that tracing processed meat products is a paper chase. I am keen that we have proper inspections of the meat and meat products that come into this country, so that we can see what is in the lorries, which is otherwise signed off when it comes into the UK.

Owen Paterson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, but I confirmed a few minutes ago that I am concerned that the problem is a paper-based system. The problem is that there is too much faith—the certificate and manifest on the content of pallets is taken on trust and there is not enough testing of the material. I will discuss that with Commissioner Borg tomorrow, as I discussed it yesterday and today with the noble Lord Rooker. We agree we can improve on the current system within the current arrangements by introducing some form of testing regime. Lord Rooker had some interesting ideas on how we might do that. My favoured concept is a
	form of random testing, but he might be more systematic. There will be a lessons-learned exercise afterwards, which I am keen to push on with.
	On new technologies, the UK Government invest more than £410 million annually in research in the agriculture, food and drink sector. I am working closely with my right hon. Friend the Minister for Universities and Science on the agri-tech strategy. There is a lot that is positive that we can do and are doing to help the British food and farming sectors make the most of their excellent products and high standards. I think we are all agreed on the need to maintain confidence, and that is not helped by muddying the waters with misleading suggestions that the current investigations are not being pursued vigorously and seriously. From my exchanges with the FSA chairman and industry leaders, I know that this issue is being taken very seriously across the whole food chain. Of course, we shall look at the lessons to be learned from these problems once the immediate incidents have been resolved. As I have just said, I am convinced we have a system that involves too much trust in paper-based systems and we need to look at better testing of actual products.
	My top priority in the coming days and weeks will be to back the FSA as it follows through its investigations, and to collaborate with European Ministers, the Commission and the UK food industry to root out unacceptable practices and to rebuild justified confidence in food, in support of consumers. Consumers must have confidence in the products that they buy for themselves and their families. We must all work together to ensure that that is the case.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Lindsay Hoyle: May I just mention to Members who want to catch my eye that we are introducing an eight-minute limit?

Anne McIntosh: I congratulate the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) and the Opposition on securing such a timely debate on the eve of the discussions that the Secretary of State will have in Europe with his counterparts, and on the back of two meetings with industry. Today, we should be celebrating the food industry for the reasons that the hon. Lady set out and the number whom it employs. I represent one of the largest meat-producing constituencies. We celebrate Thirsk having the largest fatstock mart in the country, and Malton having a smaller mart. Farm-gate prices are falling and there is currently a crisis in the sheep industry. It is widely recognised that we are worried about the state of the lamb industry in the north of England; we fear that many sheep producers may go out of business.
	We perhaps ought to take a lesson from this issue and revise our eating habits as consumers. When I was brought up I remember having a small roast with the family on a Sunday and using leftovers to go into other dishes during the week. Were we to do that and encourage manufacturers from now on to take British-sourced beef into processed and frozen foods, that would be the speediest way to restore confidence in the food industry. Retailers accept their responsibility and have risen to
	the challenge set by the Secretary of State. My concern is this. I am proud to have the Food and Environment Research Agency headquarters in my constituency at Sand Hutton near York, but it seems perverse that we continue to accept contaminated and suspect meat consignments, testing within a week and with results by Friday, yet we now may have to re-export some of the suspect meats to Germany and elsewhere for testing. That is a little bit gross and I hope that that will not be the case.
	I will dwell for a moment on what I believe the Secretary of State and the Government can do. Before I do so, I assure the hon. Member for Wakefield that insofar as Dalepak is concerned—it will issue a statement to this effect—the trace in its consignment was found to be less than 1%. Under present rules, that is not deemed to be contaminated meat. It would help everybody if we stopped talking about contamination when there is a trace. We need to move the debate on to what is a trace, and at some stage the FSA or the Department will have to say what trace is acceptable. We are never going to get an entire sample free of any trace, for perfectly understandable reasons.

Mary Creagh: I take on board what the hon. Lady says. I believe that the tests that are being conducted will look for equine presence up to 1%, not to 0.1%. That relates to the pork found last week in halal products that were supplied to a prison. Is she saying that it is not possible to guarantee to consumers from certain faith groups that we can never get rid of traces of other animals? What does that mean for factories branding themselves as halal? Does that mean that they can no longer deal with pork products?

Anne McIntosh: That is a separate debate. We would need to look at the costs of two separate lines, one for beef and one for pork. We need to reconsider what is acceptable as a trace and differentiate that from contamination. This debate is about gross contamination of 60% to 100%, and that is what is so offensive to consumers.
	We need an assurance—whether from Romania, France, Poland, Ireland, Sweden or wherever—that exporting countries in the EU are conducting both physical and product labelling checks at the point of export. Until we have that assurance from the Commission, consumers will not have much confidence in the process. It is my firm, personal belief that if product checks had taken place, food contaminated with horsemeat would never have entered the food chain. However, the fact is that it is in the food chain; as far as we know, it is continuing to enter the food chain; and we are continuing to find more contamination in frozen foods.
	I practised in the EU many years ago, so my knowledge of EU law is extremely rusty, but the Cassis de Dijon case involved the passing off of an inferior alcoholic product as Cassis to go into such drinks as kir royale and other luxury products. The inferior product clearly did not fit the bill. I understand that the member state concerned was allowed, for a temporary period, to suspend imports of products being passed off as something else until such time as a ruling could be given.
	All I am asking is for the Government to stop this chain of events. There are 27 member states, or however many there are now, relying on the Food Safety Act 1990,
	which is entirely compatible with European food labelling regulations. I would imagine that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will have huge support from all other member states in the European Union, but until we can again inspire confidence in the food industry and allow the retailers to get on with what they are good at—delivering safe, healthy food to our supermarkets—then we ought to recognise what other hon. Members have said today. This is an opportunity to recognise the excellence of British-produced beef, and to try to see to what extent that can be used.
	I accept the Secretary of State’s point about a premium product now going for premium prices, but he must accept that the labelling provisions, the traceability and the additional animal welfare conditions that we in this country uniquely impose on our producers have increased cost. Farm-gate prices are going down. Feed costs have gone up. The cost of transporting animals to slaughter has gone up. Slaughterhouses are fewer and further apart. We ought to use this as an opportunity to encourage retailers to look to sourcing locally produced beef for their processed and frozen products. I celebrate the contribution of the beef industry and other meat industries to the UK, not just to locally sourced food. Much that is produced in Thirsk, Malton and Filey will go abroad for breeding purposes, because of the uniqueness and life history of each particular herd.
	This debate is timely. Perhaps the FSA has been caught on the back foot. When in November the FSA was told by the Food Safety Authority of Ireland that DNA tests were to be conducted on particular products entering the food chain through our supermarkets, it was a wake-up call to the FSA here to do similar tests. It was of concern to the Select Committee to hear that the original contamination could have been in the food chain for up to one year—who knows, it might have been longer. We need to get to the bottom of this. I accept the assurance that criminal proceedings will follow, but we all know that the wheels of the law move extremely slowly. The Secretary of State has the opportunity tomorrow to take this argument to Europe. It is a Europe-wide problem so we must have a Europe-wide solution. I believe that the answer lies in our food-labelling provisions and European law. I hope that this debate will give him every power to his elbow in tomorrow’s negotiations.

Tom Watson: I was pleased to hear the Secretary of State mention trust in his speech, because it lies at the heart of this public policy issue. We need to ensure that the regulatory and legislative framework provides trust to consumers eating food off the plate. They need to know that what they buy in the supermarket is what it says on the label.
	The incident involving Findus UK is instructive. I am speaking today because, when I asked the Secretary of State a question yesterday, his answer led me to believe that he was not in possession of the facts. On this occasion, I have a reasonable suspicion that it was not his fault. I think at best it was because very clever crisis public relations people had obfuscated the facts, but it might also be possible that people have been deliberately withholding the facts from the Secretary of State and his Department. In order to make my case, I need to go through the timeline of events.
	I want one thing to come out of my contribution: for the Secretary of State and his team to redouble their efforts when they scrutinise what happened at Findus. In the past 24 hours, since yesterday’s Question Time, I have assembled a timeline of what I think happened. On Tuesday 29 January, Findus Group received initial test results from the Eurofins lab in Germany suggesting that horsemeat DNA had entered its beef lasagne products. By Wednesday 30 January, Findus UK had decided to quarantine the beef lasagne in its wholesale warehouses. At some point over the next few days, it would have had confirmation of the initial lab results. Experts in the industry tell me that would usually happen within 48 hours, so I am working on the assumption that it had confirmation of the test results by Thursday 31 January.
	On Saturday 2 February, Comigel wrote to Findus UK asking it to withdraw its beef lasagne products, explaining that it could not guarantee the integrity of the supply chain of its products from as early as the previous August. It wanted its beef products withdrawn. On Monday 4 February, Findus communicated this information to major UK retailers, and I understand that the big retailers started to withdraw those products late on Monday evening. The rest of us understood that on Wednesday 6 February, because The Sun revealed it in a news report. Late afternoon on Thursday 7 February, the company confirmed that its beef lasagne products contained horsemeat. On Friday morning, my researcher in West Bromwich bought a Findus frozen lasagne in a shop in my constituency—so they were still available to my constituents—and yesterday the Secretary of State announced that on Saturday 9 February he had a conversation with Leendert den Hollander, the boss of the sister company to Findus UK, Young’s.
	From that timeline arise several searching questions that we need to put to Findus, and I would like to share them with the remaining Ministers on the Front Bench. I know that they cannot answer them straight away, but I would like to get them on the record. First, given that the company had a reasonable suspicion that its supply chain was contaminated—or whatever word we want to use—on Tuesday 29 January, why did it not issue an immediate withdrawal of products, a product recall and a refund strategy for its customers? These were frozen goods that people stored in their freezers to eat at some point in the future, so the refund strategy would have been important.
	The test results were obviously important enough to the company for it to decide to quarantine products as early as Wednesday, but not for it to remove products from the retail section. On what day did the lab results confirm beyond doubt that there was horsemeat in Findus food? That would have been the day when any company adhering to basic forms of corporate social responsibility would have pressed the red button. The company said that it was informed, in writing, on Saturday 2 February by Comigel that its supply chain was contaminated. When was it told by telephone and/or e-mail? Finally, given that the company was told on Saturday 2 February that its second and third-tier suppliers could not guarantee the ingredients in the product, why did it not urgently and immediately issue a product recall on the Saturday, but instead leave it until the Monday evening?
	Why do I think this is important? I honestly say to both Front-Bench teams that our respective views of the markets do not matter here—obviously, Ministers
	and I will differ about the markets—because even the driest economist and greatest adherent of laissez faire in the market would still consider this a market failure that needed addressing. On my side of the political and economic debate, this is probably the most perfect example of predatory capitalism I have ever seen. Findus UK was a company in crisis. Private equity investors took possession of the company a few years ago, started putting pressure on the supply chain and refinanced the company. I think that that pressure led to corporate failure and its failure to do the right thing.
	This is how capitalism eats its young. It gobbles up our money and our health, it scoffs down our dignity and our children’s safety. We eat whatever it puts in the box, and it calls it whatever it likes. I say “we”, but that does not include one man, and his name is Mr Dale Morrison, who right now is sitting on the 43rd floor of his Manhattan offices on Wall street, failing to get a grip of the biggest food fraud this country has probably ever seen. That is a failure of capitalism, whatever side of the House we sit on.

Roger Williams: The Chair of the Select Committee was quite right when she said that when the matter was first identified in Ireland about four weeks ago two separate issues were conflated: first, the small amount of contamination of beef products by another species, which was clearly an example of negligence or poor management; and, secondly, the discovery that a beef product contained 29% horsemeat, which was clearly the result of deliberate fraud in order to make an exorbitant profit. It was then, and is now, clear that this was a criminal activity and must be treated as such, but that was not seized upon by Irish officials early enough in the process.
	Illegal meat trading has been a widespread and persistent crime, but because of the regulation in this country it has been largely or totally eliminated. It is noticeable that the problems we are now facing have their origin outside the UK. We know that criminal gangs involved in smuggling goods, including drugs, and people trafficking are also likely to be involved in illegal meat trading. The profits are high and the penalties usually moderate. Apart from the adulteration of meat, other forms of criminal activity include introducing unfit meat that has been condemned for human consumption back into the human food chain. Bushmeat has also been illegally imported into this country, although that has largely been eliminated by the use of sniffer dogs at Heathrow. These are all criminal activities.

Barry Gardiner: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is aware, but we ran the UK bushmeat campaign almost a decade ago. When I took precisely that issue—bushmeat coming in through British airports and into Dalston market—to Tim Smith, the then chief executive of the FSA, he positively refused to do anything about it.

Roger Williams: I have listened to the hon. Gentleman and I know he was very active in this matter. Indeed, I introduced a ten-minute rule Bill in this House to reorganise the port authorities and get a better grip on the issue.
	The Secretary of State was right to say that it is the responsibility of retailers to guarantee proper descriptions and the safety of their products, but there must be a co-ordinated effort to stamp out this crime. It is up to the retailers, the Food Standards Agency, trading standards, port authorities, the European Food Safety Agency and, in particular, the police, including Europol, to work together to root out these offences. I cannot emphasise enough the role of the police and their investigative skills in working across borders to combat this trade.
	Although I am confident that tests will show that such products are not harmful to health, until we can trace the origin of the horsemeat, we cannot say with any certainty that it is safe. Safety depends on traceability, and traceability means being able to follow the food chain from the owner of the animal and its transportation to the abattoir to where the carcase was broken down into joints and mince and sold.

Jake Berry: We take traceability extremely seriously in Rossendale and Darwen, where we have many livestock farmers. The encouraging part of this crisis is the increase in trade with local butchers, who offer the best way of knowing where one’s meat has come from. Whitehead’s in Edgworth, Riley’s in Crawshawbooth and Turner’s in Darwen are all butchers selling locally produced meat—one can look out of the window and see the animals.

Roger Williams: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that; I may come to a similar point later. He is quite right. Indeed, I should have declared an interest, as I am a livestock farmer producing beef, and I can surely tell everybody that the amount of paperwork and records that need to be kept are now proving their worth, because we can demonstrate that British food is safe and good to eat.
	The key is finding out at what stage wrongly described horsemeat was introduced into the food chain. We know that the food chain is extremely long, complicated and convoluted, but we do not yet know where the horsemeat was introduced. We therefore do not know who the victims of the fraud are and who the perpetrators are. Until we can find out, we will not complete the work. However, it is worth reflecting on the fact that the ultimate victims of the fraud are, as always, the consumers, who have been duped into eating a product that they did not wish to eat.
	The excellent traceability in the UK food industry means that meat produced and sold as British in the UK is safe and unadulterated. It is easy properly to identify a piece of sirloin, a steak or, indeed, a piece of oxtail, but that is much more difficult with processed and ready-meal products. Labelling is problematic, because there might be many different foods from different sources in different countries, put together in different proportions in one product. In the long term, lessons must be learned, particularly about regulating the food chain across borders. To respond to the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry), in the short term, using one’s local butcher is probably best—I could mention a number of butchers, but I shall not as I would probably miss out one or two worthy local tradespeople. For a long time, they have had to compete against large supermarkets that have once again shown that their first interest is serving their shareholders, rather than their consumers and suppliers. It is time to repay our local butchers with our custom.

Diane Abbott: We have heard a lot in this important debate about producer interests. I want to detain the House for a few minutes to talk about the interests of consumers and to remind the House that, even as we speak, there are mums—and dads, too—hovering over the frozen food cabinets of their corner shops, supermarkets or favourite frozen food stores, looking at their favourite processed meat product and saying, “Is this what it says it is? Is it even safe?” For those ordinary mums and dads up and down the country, it is not enough for Ministers to hide behind this or the other quango, as this horsemeat scandal has clear public health implications—possible implications, but implications none the less. There is a public health dimension, so responsibility falls fairly and squarely on Government.
	We are relieved in the House today to understand that at this point there is no evidence that antibiotics or other drugs have entered the food chain. That is what we know today, but we know from previous food scandals that what we know this week may change week on week. It is the public health aspect that makes this an issue for Government. It is the public’s belief—it is a belief as old as the Chamber itself—that when it comes to the adulteration of foodstuffs, whether it is watered-down milk in the Victorian era or horsemeat in lasagne in 2013, they can look to Government to take some responsibility.
	The other point to make is that we should not forget that this scandal affects the very poorest in our community and their children. Who, really, is eating £1 lasagne and so-called value burgers? Who buys those things, except the very poorest in communities such as mine? Often they feed them to children. I hear people saying, “Oh, you’d have to eat an awful lot of these things for there to be any discernable effect on your health,” but I put it to Ministers, who might not be aware of this, that there are families in communities such as mine who eat an awful lot of cheap, processed food. They deserve absolute assurances about its quality, not Ministers hiding behind quangos.
	It must concern anyone taking an interest in this debate that the whistle was blown not by the Food Standards Agency in England, but by the Food Safety Authority in Ireland. What does that say about the processes and procedures in the British Isles? There are issues with the break-up and reorganisation of the FSA and the loss of trading standards officers locally. Serious issues have also been raised for some time about the cuts to the Meat Hygiene Service, so for Ministers to say that the ultimate responsibility lies somewhere else is not something that the British public accept or believe for a second. It is no coincidence that this issue has been headline news for some days in the British media, whether they ostensibly support the Government or not. I believe that it will continue to be headline news until it plays itself out, because historically there has been no issue of greater concern to British families than the quality of the food that they eat.
	A fundamental issue arising from the horsemeat scandal is the price of cheap food. All along the food chain, relentless pressure has been exerted for decades to drive down costs at the farm gate, and at production, manufacturing and retail levels. There are obviously
	sections of the British community who cannot afford expensive products, but the main pressure on costs comes from the massive retail chains.

Andrew Gwynne: My hon. Friend is making a powerful point. The consequence of driving down costs has been to drive down quality as well. Is it not invidious that some products being sold as beef have never come into contact with a cow?

Diane Abbott: I entirely agree. The pressure on costs inevitably means pressure on quality. Instead of cutting back institutions such as the Meat Hygiene Service and reorganising and destabilising the FSA, the Government should be putting more resources and effort into guaranteeing the quality of food, right down to the cheapest products being bought by the poorest members of our communities.

Roger Williams: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Diane Abbott: I will not; I want to make some progress.
	My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich East (Mr Watson) made an important point that relates to my points about pressures on costs and business pressures. He mentioned the delay in Findus withdrawing its products. It seems to be the case that Findus delayed withdrawing its product until after the weekend so that it could move another 100,000 units and bolster its profits. This is what I mean about the pressures; they are inimical to ensuring that our people can purchase a quality product, even at the lowest cost. My hon. Friend referred to the chief executive officer of Findus, Dale Morrison. Even as we are debating the issue in Parliament and our constituents are wondering whether the processed meat product of their choice is safe, he is sitting in his skyscraper in Manhattan, apparently oblivious to our cares so long as he can see the share price of Findus going in the right direction.
	There are public health questions that need to be answered. The quality of our foodstuffs is too important a matter to be left to the moral sense of private equity predators. I believe that this issue has a long way to run. The Government should not be hiding behind civil servants or quangos. They must accept their moral responsibility for the quality of the food that our people purchase in the shops, and for any possible threat to public health.

Laura Sandys: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott). In many ways, I shall continue the theme that she has introduced, albeit possibly from a different perspective. There are many other Members who know a lot more than I do about traceability and supply chain management, but I have done quite a lot of work on the food system as a whole.
	Let us be frank: we are facing a crisis in the food system. The crisis relates not to the replacement horsemeat that we are discussing today. That is just one of the symptoms of the crisis relating to the cost of food. The food system, particularly in this country, is designed around cheap food. That is a business model that has developed over many decades, and it is because that model is changing that we are now seeing fraud within the system.
	In the UK, food prices have risen dramatically over the past five years. The 32% increase in that period is double the EU average, and the problem is going to get worse. In April, we are likely to see a significant price increase due to the American drought. The Russians have been imposing intermittent restrictions on exports, and it is extremely worrying that Ukraine, which has signed a debt swap with the Chinese, is seeking to secure that debt swap with its food commodities. Ukraine has been acting as Europe’s traditional hedging supplier for cost reduction in raw commodities.
	The crisis is that the era of cheap food is now over. We all need to put in place policies and strategies to achieve the difficult result of smoothing the transition to a higher-priced food sector and ensuring that, despite the price rises, the families the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington was talking about will be able to feed themselves with quality food and be sure that the food they are putting on their tables is what it says on the package.
	I have not heard the Opposition put forward any strategies to address the fundamental issue that we are facing globally. Let me put some thoughts on that to the Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath). First, the supermarkets —and possibly we politicians—must start to be straight with the public about rising food prices. Maybe after this disaster we will start to face up to the realities. It is not the supermarkets or the manufacturers that are absorbing the price rises; it is the consumers. Horsemeat replacement products are the result of a flawed business model, in that that has been seen as the only way to square the ludicrous circle of having cheap food in the shops and rocketing food prices in the supply chain.
	Consumers are suffering not only from fraudulent food but from the substitution of the best ingredients with what some people call “arterial Polyfilla”. The £1 cottage pie in the local freezer shop that the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington mentioned might have been the same price for the past five years, but will it still have the same contents? Will it contain less meat and have more high-fructose corn syrup, which some people call “heart attack central”? Packaging is also absorbing more price rises. Are people aware of how much fresh air they are buying in their cereal packets? Also, 60% of all products in supermarkets are now on promotion, but some of those promotions are misleading, as Which?, published by the Consumers Association, has rightly highlighted in its report on food promotions.
	I am sure that the Government are now taking a new look at food policy. Over the past 15 years, they have more or less devolved the relationship between the consumer and food to the supermarkets. That has never been right, but it cannot now continue. We need to re-engineer our food policy around consumers, not around producers or retailers. We need to move from a “cheap as chips” model to one in which we value food. The new food cost reality might ultimately be better for the public and for our producers, but the transition is already very painful.
	When I talk to the poorest families in my constituency, they tell me that they cannot afford to go to the supermarket any more. I might as well ask them whether they go to
	Harvey Nichols or Harrods. They get their food from pound shops, Aldi, Lidl, corner shops and street markets. Chips from the takeaway with ketchup or brown sauce will be dinner for the family.
	Some of our strategies are interesting. They cover cooking and eating more healthily. Change for Life is a fantastic health programme in this country. The problem is, however, that Change for Life as a message is difficult when some of my families do not have enough time to change their clothes and they are in many ways intimidated by the thought of that type of proposition.

Tom Harris: I am enjoying the hon. Lady’s speech a great deal, but I wonder where she is going with it. It is not necessarily a bad thing—I just wondered whether I could pre-empt the point she is perhaps coming on to. She said that we have to be realistic about the value of food. I felt that she was preparing us all to pay more for our food. How does that equate with her obvious sympathy with the poorest families in her constituency? How will they manage to make that leap if incomes stay as low as they are?

Laura Sandys: I think that that is a false choice. The issue is that we have stopped valuing, understanding and being able to use food. One thing has been a huge asset: this week, the Secretary of State for Education announced that food preparation and food cooking will be part of the national curriculum. Through such moves, we are creating a more resilient public. We cannot get away from the fact that global food prices are rising. We must support the poorest families in that transition. I do not believe that we need to eat less well, despite the rise in the food prices. What we need to do is to have greater transparency, much more resilience and greater skills to be able to use food more effectively.
	Poorer families will be making cheaper choices, so it is crucial that labelling is transparent. Where is the flash on that cottage pie saying “30% less meat”? Government also need to look at tightening some of the regulations on food promotion. Products that are less expensive are going on promotion at more expensive prices. Retailers are shortening the period in which a product needs to be on full price before a discount is a true discount. That is another form of consumers absorbing price rises, but not absorbing them transparently.
	We need not just a summit on food safety, but a commission on our whole food system, focusing on the consumer and ensuring that we stand shoulder to shoulder with the public who are going to have to manage the painful transition from a “cheap as chips” food model to a more expensive one. Families should be able to feed themselves as well in the new model if we provide the support and ensure that the retailers do not try to pretend that nothing has changed.
	Burying our heads in the sand has got us to where we are now. Customers have had to face either lack of transparency or the actual experience of food fraud. Horsemeat in my view is only the beginning of this food crisis, if we do not face up to the realities of rising food prices and become the champion of the consumer.

Kerry McCarthy: I congratulate the shadow DEFRA Front-Bench team on pursuing this issue relentlessly and on choosing it as a topic for
	today’s debate. We had a statement yesterday, but there is a lot more to be thrashed out on this issue. I therefore greatly welcome the opportunity to take part in the debate.
	This issue is important not only because it has exposed the scandal of horsemeat adulterating our food chain, but because of the spotlight it throws on the meat industry more generally—what Felicity Lawrence referred to in The Guardian on Saturday as
	“the hidden unsavoury food world, in which live animals are transported vast distances across borders for slaughter, before being shipped back again in blocks of frozen offcuts that may be stored for months on end before being ground down to unrecognisable ingredients in our everyday meals”.
	Lord Haskins, a farmer and the former chairman of Northern Foods—someone who definitely knows his topic—has warned that there is “endemic, institutional fraud” in the food industry. It is not enough to get to the bottom of whether there is hitherto unidentified horsemeat—or is it donkey?—in meat products on sale in the UK, or to discover whether halal products are contaminated with pork; we need to look at the whole meat industry because who knows what other scandals have yet to come to light?
	We are all familiar with the past controversy about beef hormones in our meat and the EU ban in the wake of mad cow disease some years ago. Some may be familiar, too, with the more recent controversy in the USA over what the meat industry likes to refer to as “lean finely textured beef” or “boneless lean beef trimmings”. That may sound fine, but this is more commonly known as “pink slime”, which sounds much less appetising. It is used as a filler in beef products and is produced by processing low-grade beef trimmings, cartilage, connective tissue and sinew, and mechanically separating the lean beef from the fat by heating it to 100° F.

Diane Abbott: Does my hon. Friend think that if people really knew what goes into some of these cheaper processed meat products, they would continue to buy them?

Kerry McCarthy: That is very much the point I am making. It is so important for people to know what goes into their food, but there is a conspiracy to keep that information from people.

Barry Gardiner: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Government have just concluded a consultation on the EU food information for consumers regulation, under which they are asking for a derogation so that they do not have to reveal that information on the label to the public in Britain? Mince, which is not allowed to be sold with 35% and 15% respectively of fat and collagen in it, will not be allowed to be sold on the continent, but it will be sold in Britain under that derogation.

Kerry McCarthy: Exactly. I raised that very issue with the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs yesterday, and I have to say from his response that it looked as if it was the first he had heard of it; he simply said that we rely on scientific advice, which I think is scandalous.
	I am just halfway through my description of the process involved in producing pink slime. The recovered beef material is then processed, heated and treated with
	gaseous ammonia or citric acid to kill bacteria. It is then finely ground, compressed into pellets, flash frozen and shipped for use as an additive. There was a public outcry over this issue a while ago, and we saw Jamie Oliver appearing on American TV decrying its use. There was a real backlash, and companies such as McDonalds, Burger King and Taco Bell announced that they would discontinue its use. There was also an outcry about it appearing in meals in the public sector, and promises were made that that would no longer happen. Once consumers knew that there was pink slime in their food, they did not want it and wanted the meat industry to stop producing it.
	There is also a substance that has become colloquially known as “white slime” in meat products. It is officially known as “mechanically separated meat” or “mechanically recovered meat”. This is the product most likely to be used in highly processed meat products such as burgers or pies. It is a paste-like product produced by forcing beef, pork, turkey or chicken under high pressure through a sieve to get every last little scrap of meat off the bone. Questions have been raised about its safety and some have argued there should be limits on how much of it should be used in a food product—for example, no more than 20% is allowed in hot dogs. The fact is, however, that consumers do not realise that this is in their hot dogs. Finally, there is advanced meat recovery, which separates meat from bone by scraping, shaving or pressing the meat from the bone—again, typically used in hot dogs.
	Let me quote what John Harris said in an excellent article in yesterday’s The Guardian—it may sound a bit of a cliché to keep quoting this newspaper, but it is not particularly fond of vegetarians generally. He said that EU regulations insist that if a product is to be called “meat”, it has to be
	“skeletal muscle with naturally included or adherent fat and connective tissue”.
	He said that our Food Standards Agency insists that economy beef burgers must contain at least 40% of this product, which must come from cows. That is not very reassuring; I think people expect their beef burgers to have beef in them, not cartilage, fat and connective tissue.
	In talking about the relentless search for profits from cheap food, John Harris cited a Financial Times article saying that Findus products came from a factory in Luxembourg, which was supplied with meat by a company in south-west France, which had acquired frozen meat from a Cypriot trader that had subcontracted the order to a trader in the Netherlands—who was then supplied from an abattoir and butcher located in Romania. As John Harris says, how messed up has our food system become? All this is a far cry from the sort of meat that many Members praised during yesterday’s statement on horsemeat. The advisability of buying local meat from a local farm sold by a local butcher was highlighted, where the path from the pasture to the plate is a matter of public record. Indeed, I have heard people saying that they take local sourcing so far that they even know the name of the cow they are consuming.
	It is very easy to say that, and in ideal world, people would be looking to buy organically reared locally produced products, but that is very expensive. Yes, it can be said that people should try to cook their own food and source it locally instead of buying ready-made meals, but I am sure many MPs grab a ready meal from
	Tesco or Marks and Spencer on their way home after a vote. We should not be too judgmental about people who turn to value ranges and ready-made meals, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) said. If someone has only a couple of pounds left in their purse and there is a £1 lasagne ready meal or an eight-pack of Tesco economy burgers left in the shop, they will buy one of those rather than buying the mince, the sheets of pasta, the flour, the butter, the tomatoes, the herbs and the cheese that they would need to make a lasagne from scratch. Many people do not even have the necessary cooking facilities in any case. I have seen single men in my constituency living in bedsits with just a microwave for cooking.

Mark Spencer: This should not seem like rocket science to the hon. Lady. If I told her that I could flog her a cheap telly, she would think to herself, “There must be something wrong with that TV.” It does not strike me as much of an extension of that argument to suggest that if those processed meat products are so much cheaper than other products, their quality will not be the same.

Kerry McCarthy: Sometimes people simply do not have a choice between buying the slightly dodgy knock-off cheap telly that has probably come off the back of a lorry and going to one of the high street shops and buying a top-of-a-range brand. That is the point that I am trying to make. People may well know that what they are eating is not as good as the organic produce that is sold in, for instance, The Better Food Company, an organic supermarket in Bristol, but they do not have the option of going there. As I have said, even if people had enough money to buy more than one day’s food and could plan ahead and try to cook their own meals, they would still not be buying premium “best of British” mince. They would be buying the sort of mince that was mentioned just now by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner), and about which I asked the Secretary of State yesterday. If the Government manage to find their way around European Union regulations, that mince could be up to 50% fat and collagen, and other substances that are not meat, without the consumer’s being any the wiser.
	We need to get the message across to Government Members. We are living in a world in which people’s cost of living is being squeezed from all sides. Their incomes and benefits are being cut, their rents are going up, and fuel prices, fares and food prices are rising. Obviously they will buy the packet of eight Tesco value burgers for £1, because they have no other option. According to statistics released last week by Mintel, the market research company, some 30% of consumers now buy budget ranges, as opposed to just one in five back in 2008. We cannot insist that everyone should buy the premium, locally sourced, top-of-the-range products, because some people simply cannot afford to do that. The important point, surely, is that all food should be of a decent quality, and all consumers should know what is in their food.

Simon Hart: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Kerry McCarthy: I am about to end my speech.
	That is the Government’s responsibility, and I was shocked by the Secretary of State’s complacency when he answered questions earlier. He is being very slow to act, but very quick to abdicate all responsibility and say that this is a matter for the Food Standards Agency. That is just not good enough. It is the Government’s responsibility to ensure that people have trust in the food that they eat.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I shall have to lower the speaking limit to seven minutes in order to enable everyone to speak. Members will keep intervening!

Caroline Nokes: It is slightly challenging to follow the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), who produced one of the best cases for vegetarianism that I have ever heard.
	I fear that I shall veer off into some specifics, given my experience of working for a passport-issuing organisation and the fact that I understand just a little about the way in which horse passports are issued and the value or otherwise of the national equine database. I apologise in advance if what I say becomes a bit too specific for Members, but I think that that the House needs clarification of the problems and benefits of horse passports and also of the function of the database, which did nothing to assist traceability and the establishment of what drugs might or might not have been given to equines. However, I agree with the Secretary of State that the most important aspect of all this is the issue of public health and public confidence in our foodstuffs.
	I entirely endorse the policy of 100% testing of the carcases of horses that have been slaughtered in the United Kingdom for phenylbutazone, or bute. It is impossible to establish whether a horse has been fed bute by looking at its passport. The hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) suggested that horses might have been injected with bute, but only very rarely is the substance administered intravenously. It is fed to horses in feedstuff. Not only is the possibility of cross-contamination incredibly likely, but bute is a very useful drug which is often given to horses that are elderly or slightly lame. It prolongs their useful life, and enables them to enjoy a better quality of life.
	Bute is also extremely cheap, which means that, among both veterinary surgeons and horse owners, it is incredibly popular. If the life of a much-loved family pony can be extended by a further five or 10 years by one sachet of bute a day, those sachets will be administered. However, therein lies some of the problem. Bute is readily available from veterinary surgeons. While I would not suggest that horse owners are irresponsible, if a ready supply is prescribed for one horse—as might happen in the case that I have identified—what is to prevent me from giving it to another horse?
	I have here a wonderful British horse passport, which should provide a complete veterinary record of every drug and vaccination given to that much-loved pony, but there is no record of its ever having been given bute
	in its life. It is absolute nonsense to suggest that the horse passport system will somehow inform those at the slaughterhouse of whether the pony has been given bute or not.
	I commend the last Government for introducing the horse passport regulations, and for tightening them in 2009 with the introduction of microchipping. That was an important step forward, However, it is important to remember that the microchipping of foals was compulsory only from 2009 onwards. The odds of any horse over the age of four or five being chipped are fairly long. A competition horse that is regularly used and transported around the country, if it has been measured by the Joint Measurement Board, will have been microchipped, but that is unlikely to apply to an ordinary pony that has stood in the New Forest for many years of its life, or has been kept at home and not used in competitions. A horse that is presented for slaughter may or may not have a microchip.
	The hon. Member for Wakefield said that it was perfectly legal to buy a microchip on the internet for 12p. That is true, but it is illegal to insert the chip into an equine. The check is there, but I would argue that it is much more common for horses to be presented at UK slaughterhouses without a microchip, and with a passport that may or may not have come from a recognised stud book. I can show the House two passports. One is fully pukka, and has come from a fantastic, historic equine charity—the oldest in the country—and the other is Irish, for a beast that has been through goodness knows how many sales in Ireland. However, it is the British passport that does not show that drugs have been administered, and the Irish one that does.
	Let me now say something about the national equine database. There are some 1.3 million horses in the United Kingdom, some of which were registered on the database and some of which were not. I do not know whether the hon. Lady ever looked at NED, but I did. It had a fantastic competition record, but it did not show where a horse had been kept, what drugs had been administered or what the horse had been used for. There was simply no way of telling.
	I personally lament the loss of NED because I cannot establish whether a competition record has been recorded accurately and therefore cannot boast about the potential and ability of a pony, but did the database show where I kept the pony? No. There are 10,000 licensed livery yards in the UK and many more unlicensed yards, and only about 70% of those 1.3 million horse owners keep their horses at home. There are, of course, all the other horses all around the country which may be in racehorse training or may be show jumpers or eventers. NED was utterly useless at showing where a horse was at any one time and what drugs had been administered to it.
	I have made the plea that we should not necessarily regard phenylbutazone as an evil. It is not; it is a very useful drug. However, we must ensure that it is not in the human food chain, and the only way to do that is to adopt 100% testing. I would argue that given what has gone on abroad, all meat coming into this country should be tested. Who knows what has happened in Romanian slaughterhouses, and in slaughterhouses in other parts of the continent?
	I am slightly disappointed that my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Laura Sandys) is no longer present, because I think that she has done some fantastic
	work on the transport of live animals and on live exports, which I think play a massive part in this debate. We must reach a point—although who knows how it can be achieved with the European Union?—at which animals are transported for far shorter distances and are not crossing an entire continent, and we can consider not only food traceability and safety but the welfare of those animals.

Barry Gardiner: I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes). As a former Minister for the horse, I remember the early days of horse passports. I always had my doubts that they would be able to do the job in relation to bute, and the hon. Lady has ably illustrated that they could not.
	Perhaps there has been no better time at which to be a food criminal. This is a time of deep economic recession across Europe. The food supply chain is extraordinarily complex, too, with swift transit of goods and products across international borders and multiple regulatory frameworks on composition, safety and labelling, and in Romania there was the sudden enforcement of a recent law to remove horses and carts from the country’s roads.
	Let us be clear: this scandal has involved the most extraordinary degree of corporate blindness. Tim Smith is the former chief executive of the FSA and is now head of food security at Tesco. He had the affront to tell the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee on 30 January that he thought this was a rogue event and that FSA Ireland chanced to do DNA testing on precisely the day when a rogue consignment of horsemeat just happened to be present. What is most extraordinary is not his pathetic naivety, but the fact that he is still in his job at Tesco two weeks later.
	We know that excuses that begin with the words “Just one rogue trader” or “Just one rogue reporter” have an unhappy history. What Tesco sought to dismiss as just one bad day at the abattoir has now infected almost every major retailer not only in the UK, but across the continent: Tesco, Iceland. Aldi, Co-op and Lidl are joined by Carrefour, Casino, Auchan and Monoprix.
	The supply chain for processed meat products was ripe for criminal activity. Findus in the UK was supplied by Comigel in France, which supplies retailers in 16 countries. The contaminated Findus products came from the Comigel factory in Luxembourg, but the meat came from south-west France, from a company called Spanghero, whose parent company is Poujol, which acquired the meat from Cypriot traders, who in turn had subcontracted the sourcing of the meat to a trader in the Netherlands. We are told this trader had sourced meat from an abattoir and butcher in Romania.
	Interestingly, this information came not from our UK Secretary of State, but from France’s consumer affairs Minister, Benoît Hamon. In France, many people eat horse, of course, but just like we Rosbifs, they do not want to eat horse when they are paying for, and think that they are eating, beef.
	More than 25 abattoirs in Romania are properly licensed to butcher and export horsemeat, but it must be properly labelled as horse. The key question in this fraud is at what point in the complex food chain did
	someone wilfully take off a label saying “horse” and replace it with a label saying “beef.” Today’s motion rightly calls on the Government to ensure that police and fraud specialists investigate that criminality.

Roger Williams: The hon. Gentleman is right to want to identify the point at which the fraud took place, but more than one person will have been involved, as this is likely to have been an extremely complex and well-organised operation.

Barry Gardiner: I entirely agree, and that is why I am very pleased that the shadow Secretary of State has called on the Serious Fraud Office to look at this matter, as it has the remit and ability to address such complex cases.
	How is it that all these supermarkets across Europe so singularly failed to identify the risk of substitution and contamination of their processed meat products? After all, these are the very supermarkets that drive our farmers to despair when they reject whole consignments of perfectly good fruit and vegetables because they are misshapen or blemished in some way. The point is not simply that supermarkets are unjust in their treatment of our farmers; they have the means and the will to do detailed and minute checks on their products when it is in their own interests to do so. Tesco and its ilk simply cared more that the pears they sold were the right conical shape than that the processed meat we bought from them was contaminated and of a different species than advertised.
	Over the last decade, our UK farmers have done a magnificent job in improving animal welfare and food hygiene. The introduction of pride marks such as the red tractor scheme give the public confidence that the food they are eating has a short supply chain and comes from local farmers who operate to the highest standards. Responsibility for food labelling policy lies with DEFRA. Its Ministers must now decide that food labels must clearly identify the country of origin. The lack of mandatory country of origin food labelling places British farmers at a disadvantage. British people want to buy British farm produce with confidence.
	I have not always in the past quoted with total approval from Countryside Alliance press releases, but on this matter it is entirely right. It says:
	“The lack of mandatory country of origin food labelling continues to place British farmers at a disadvantage when much of their competition comes from producers in countries, which are not subject to such robust animal welfare legislation and standards and the associated costs.”
	On phenylbutazone or bute, the point is simply this: 156 tests were done last year, nine of which found the presence of bute, but 9,000 horses went through British abattoirs. On that ratio, some 520 carcases may well have been contaminated with bute—and, as the hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North said, the tests might not have picked up all the horses with bute. There is an omission in the figures presented to us, too: we know the number of tests and the number of positives, but we do not know the number of prosecutions. If there were nine positive tests, why were there not nine positive prosecutions?
	The FSA today announced its new system of positive release. The move away from a desk-based system of audit is welcome. In future, no horse carcase will be released for the food chain until it has been tested negative for bute. The FSA must have further powers, too, however. It must have the task of making risk-based assessments of the supply chain and of instructing supermarkets and retailers about the number of physical product checks that they must do on the basis of the volume they shift and the length and complexity of their supply chain. The FSA must also receive, as of right, all results from the tests that retailers carry out, whether under instruction from the FSA or on their own account.
	I want to say one positive thing about what the Government are doing. We have heard in the past week that children will be taught at school how to cook. That is positive. They will no longer just put processed food in a microwave; they will be able to cook things from fresh produce for themselves. That will be a real advantage.

Mark Spencer: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner). Although he represents an urban constituency, he speaks with great knowledge and experience about the food industry, and has a reputation for doing so. May I also draw attention to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests?
	This topic has not suddenly emerged over the past two and half years; the problem we are talking about today has been a long time coming, and therefore some of the comments from Opposition Members stick in my throat like a dodgy burger. They speak as if this Government have created this problem, but the entire situation has been changing since the second world war, when the proportion of cash an individual spent on their food bill was much larger than it is today. Then, families would have spent 60% of their income on food, but today that figure is much smaller and as such we have lost the context of how valuable our food is.
	I drew an analogy with television, but we could say the same about car tyres. A person would never buy second-hand car tyres from someone offering them on the cheap, because they would instantly recognise that their individual safety could be at risk. However, we as consumers seem to have got into a position where we are happy to see the price of food fall and be driven down. We have lost the concept of how valuable our food is, and that has led us to the position we are in today.
	The hon. Member for Brent North referred to the fact that the Education Secretary plans to reintroduce cooking and food to the curriculum, which is a great step forward. Two generations of consumer have lost contact with how food is produced and with how to cook raw product, and again, that is to the detriment of our food industry. If the Government can do anything, more education about how to cook food and deal with raw products will mean that consumers are able to buy better quality food for the same money if they learn to shop about and source food from the right places.
	Today, UK agriculture finds itself in a different place to the rest of the world, but that is no fluke and comes from bitter experience. The BSE crisis in the UK taught the beef industry valuable lessons about consumer
	confidence and how the consumer needs to understand, know and have confidence in a product. Today we know that if we go to our local butcher, not only will they be able to sell us a very high-quality cut of meat or processed beefburger, but they will be able to identify the animal that the beefburger came from, as well as its mother and father. That is the level of traceability in the UK butchery industry today, and UK consumers should understand that. Certainly, when that is compared with some of the points made by the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) about the processed meat industry, and with some of the products sold as meat that normal people would not recognise as such, there is a strong message to deliver on behalf of the UK meat industry.
	This is not rocket science: the shorter we make the chain, the easier it is to have such traceability, and labelling will be important as we move forward. We heard from the Opposition about how the labelling of our products should be more prominent, yet when they were in power, there were several private Members’ Bills and lobbying by the then Opposition to try to improve labelling and ensure that consumers understood where and how their food was being produced.

Simon Hart: On that point, does my hon. Friend agree that in this instance there was nothing unclear about the labelling? It said beef but in fact it was horse.

Mark Spencer: Absolutely, and that is fundamental. Frankly, that could not happen in the UK because environmental health officers and trading standards officers are checking a paper trail that goes right back.

Pat Glass: I agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman has said, but surely the issue is about criminality, which is international. If a criminal changes the label, it does not matter whether the meat is British or comes from abroad; consumers will not have confidence.

Mark Spencer: I acknowledge that position, but my point is that given the traceability in the UK industry, the opportunity to change those labels is simply not there. Registered vets in every abattoir in the United Kingdom are watching the line and checking that the carcases are stamped and marked. They cannot be changed. When one buys what is basically a block of frozen meat from an international buyer, it is easy to pull off the label that says “beef” and slap on one that says something else, or reverse that process. That is a sad state of affairs.
	Consumers want to know exactly what they are eating, but today we are in a position where I could set up my own little factory, buy in Brazilian chicken, make chicken pies in my kitchen, and sell them as Nottinghamshire chicken pie. We need to look more closely at the labelling process so that the industry tells consumers exactly what they are buying and where it has come from.
	In the end, the consumer has the power and can choose where they source their products. They can choose to go to a supermarket or to a local, small and independent high-street butcher. They can shop around and make those decisions. I acknowledge that that becomes challenging right at the bottom, where people are struggling to make ends meet and to find the cash to buy those
	products. That is why we need a regulatory system that they can have confidence in, that they can support and that they acknowledge.
	My final message is that this weekend, when people are thinking about what they want to have for dinner, they should go to their local butcher, look him in the eye and say, “Where has this animal come from? Tell me about it.” People will then be able to eat that dinner with confidence, knowing that they are buying good-quality, locally produced meat.

Neil Parish: rose—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. May I just say to Mr Parish that he has five minutes, as we have to start the wind ups at 20 minutes to 4?

Neil Parish: May I apologise for not being here at the start of the debate?
	It is a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr Spencer), who made some strong points about the traceability of the product in this country. From when animals are in the farmers’ field to the time they are slaughtered and processed, we know exactly where they have come from: the red tractor mark identifies farm assurance, giving us certainty that we are buying the right product and that it is beef.
	I wish to say clearly to hon. Members that we have not suddenly got to this situation, as these things have been happening for years. I was a Member of the European Parliament for 10 years, serving on its agriculture committee. Time and again, we said, “We want greater traceability. We want to be able to follow these products across Europe. We want to be confident that it is not just a paper trail and that we actually have physical inspection of this meat and meat product.” None of that has happened. If there is a silver lining to this situation, it is that it is a wake-up call. We can therefore make sure we put in place a process whereby we identify the product and consumers can be absolutely confident that they are buying beef and not horsemeat.
	That leads me on to the fact that what has been happening is fraud—it is criminal activity—as we should be able to buy a beef burger in the shops, even a cheap one, and have confidence in it. We have talked a great deal about educating people on how to cook meat, and that is a great step forward, but we have reached a stage where, rightly or wrongly, many more people eat processed food. We in this Chamber are not going to roll that back, so when a consumer buys a beef burger, even a cheap one, he or she should be confident that it contains beef and not horse.
	People no longer want to spend their time cooking the types of meat we have used over the years—the slow-roasting joints and so on—or perhaps they do not have the time available, so much of that meat and meat product can go into cheaper burgers. There is therefore no excuse for what has been happening. I say clearly, making the same point as my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood did, that in 1970 we were spending more than 30% of our income on food whereas the figure now is about 12%. Although the percentage of their
	income that people are spending on food has dropped dramatically, they should still be able confident of what they eat.
	We expect the food industry to stand up and be counted, and to be certain that the product it is selling is exactly what it says it is. We have seen supermarkets use a great deal of muscle in the past, and they will do so again, to try to drive prices down. In many ways, one could argue that that is of great benefit to the consumer, but that is only if the consumer gets a product they can trust and be confident in. We must be careful of the day when we go against all processed food, because processed food is not necessarily bad for us. If it is processed in the way it should be and it contains what it says it should on the label, we can eat it with confidence. We can do that if we are eating British food produced under our farm assured system.
	I look forward to what the Minister is going to say in reply, because we now need to ensure that we have confidence in our food industry. We need to bring in a food labelling system that will clearly identify the country of origin of the principal meat ingredients in a processed product, so that we know where they come from and so that if we are concerned that they have come from other parts of Europe or across the world where we do not have the same confidence in the food chain, we will not buy that product. At the moment, we have only “processed in the EU” and “processed in the UK”, and we do not know where the principal ingredients came from. I urge Ministers, when they go to Europe, to make sure that we finally get proper labelling, so we can identify where our food came from. We can then act much more quickly to bring criminals to book. That is what they are: criminals who have put the wrong meat in a burger, which may bring problems. I look forward to hearing what the Minister of State has to say.

Tom Harris: This has been an important and well informed debate, and I wish to thank some Members individually for taking part. The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh), my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich East (Mr Watson), the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Roger Williams), the hon. Members for South Thanet (Laura Sandys) and for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes), my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) and the hon. Members for Sherwood (Mr Spencer) and for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) all made excellent speeches.
	There can be few subjects more important to us as individuals than what we eat and what we feed to our children and family. I am only sorry that the Secretary of State was too busy to listen to a single speech made after his own.

David Heath: It is important that I put it on the record that the Secretary of State is having the phone meeting with the Dutch Minister that he mentioned to the House. It is also important that we make those connections.

Tom Harris: I look forward to the right hon. Gentleman reappearing in the Chamber, but I am grateful to the Minister of State for that clarification. I know that the Secretary of State has a busy schedule—he told us so. He said that he was meeting again today with the food industry, his second such meeting in four days. I thought that might be the meeting that took him away from the Chamber, and I would have congratulated him, but I realised that today’s meeting was not convened at short notice, or even as a response to the horsemeat scandal; it was convened last October to give the Secretary of State the opportunity to talk about waste and genetically modified food. It is good to see that, at least when it comes to his diary, the right hon. Gentleman has no problem with changing the label.
	It is vital that we as consumers have full confidence that what we are eating is exactly what is stated on the packet and that Ministers are fighting our corner, but consumers watching the Secretary of State’s performance today and his statement yesterday will not have been encouraged. Many questions remain unanswered, so I hope that the Minister of State will answer them in his response. Some of them were asked yesterday but were left unanswered or were ignored by the right hon. Gentleman, who felt unable to answer them even today.
	The Secretary of State told the House yesterday that he first became aware of the horsemeat problem on 15 January. Early in his statement, he said:
	“On 15 January, the FSA was notified by the Food Safety Authority of Ireland of the results of its survey of processed beef products”.—[Official Report, 11 February 2013; Vol. 558, c. 608.]
	Will the Minister of State clarify whether that communication on 15 January was the first time the FSA was aware that such tests were taking place? Was the FSA contacted by the Irish authorities at any time between mid-November and 15 January to alert the FSA to the fact that concerns about adulteration of beef had sparked an analysis? If so, when was that first contact made? Were Ministers told at the outset? If not, why not?
	I did not pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) at the start of my speech because I wanted to make special mention of her terrific speech, which the hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North described as an excellent advert for vegetarianism. I tried vegetarianism once, but gave up after about a month because I really cannot stand mushrooms. After the statement yesterday, my hon. Friend asked a sensible question, which my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North repeated today, about an EU regulation that would limit to 50% the amount of fat and connective tissue that can be used to bulk up mincemeat. She asked about reports that the Government are seeking a derogation from that regulation. The Secretary of State dismissed her in an extremely curt and arrogant manner, which I am sure he, being a gentleman, now regrets. Will the Minister of State now answer that question? Are the Government seeking to exempt the UK from a measure that is aimed specifically at protecting the rights of consumers?
	I know the Minister of State, who will respond to the debate, takes a keen interest in the Food Standards Agency. I know that because he told the Food Programme on Sunday not once, but twice, “I can only go on the information given to me by the Food Standards Agency.”
	Fine. Good. So will he now accept the advice of the chief executive of the FSA, who has said that retailers
	“need to test significantly across the product range, across wider meat-based product ranges”?
	She was talking about chicken and pork products. Will the Minister, who prides himself on listening to the advice of the FSA, heed her advice? Do the Government have a view on this at all? [Interruption.] The Minister will get his chance to respond. He does love to chunter from a sedentary position. I spent two years on the Science and Technology Committee with the hon. Gentleman, and he was a veritable ray of sunshine during those many overseas visits. He was great company and I have to say that he seems to have gone into an awful bad mood since he went on to the Government Front Bench. I am sure that after the next election—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I am sure we want to get back on to the subject of horsemeat. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the Minister has been eating it?

Tom Harris: I am getting back in the saddle right now, Mr Deputy Speaker.
	The Minister of State warned Members a few weeks ago that we should not talk down the British food industry, and he is right, but given the huge number of jobs that the industry supports and its importance to our economy does he recognise that the industry can be undermined by other factors? Does he accept that ministerial inaction and indecisiveness can be far more damaging to the industry?
	In mid-November Irish authorities were concerned enough about contamination of meat products—sorry, adulteration of meat products—some of which were headed to the United Kingdom, that they initiated tests without, according to UK Ministers, informing the UK Government of their initial concerns. Four weeks ago Irish authorities alerted the UK Government that they had discovered horsemeat in burgers stocked in a number of UK supermarkets. Last Monday it was revealed that pies and pasties labelled as halal and served in UK prisons had tested positive for pig DNA. Last Thursday, reports emerged that the scandal had spread from frozen burgers to frozen ready meals.
	Cue a sudden blur of belated action from the Secretary of State. On Saturday, he finally got round to meeting the British food industry to discuss the growing crisis. His food Minister had a least got round to meeting the industry before, once, one week previously. As my hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State said yesterday, “Crisis, what crisis?” At last, yesterday, the Secretary of State deigned to come to the House to berate Opposition Members for having the audacity to question him about this mess. As with the ash dieback issue, he has taken a very laid-back and relaxed approach to the issue—an attitude that, I have to tell him, is not shared by British consumers and their families.
	When sales fall, when confidence in our food industry plummets, no doubt Ministers will reach for the nearest microphone to decry “scare-mongering” by Opposition politicians. Who knows? Perhaps an unfortunate young relation of the Secretary of State will be encouraged to eat a Findus lasagne live on telly! But it will not be those
	on the Opposition Benches who are responsible for the collapse in trust. Consumers, yes, and voters well know where the blame lies.
	A number of Members have highlighted the lack of an active criminal investigation. When pressed on this yesterday by my colleague, the shadow Secretary of State, the Secretary of State said that
	“she went on and on about the police”.—[Official Report, 11 February 2013; Vol. 558, c. 613.]
	Really? Does the Secretary of State really think that such a patronising and condescending manner is the way to win support in the House on such an issue? May I suggest to the Secretary of State and to his deputy that a bit of humility would not go amiss? I say this as a non-practitioner myself, but I hear it works wonders. Even if ministerial action had so far been above criticism, such a manner would be inappropriate, and Ministers’ actions so far have been far from being above criticism.
	The shadow Secretary of State was right to go on about the police. The Secretary of State himself has repeatedly stated that the adulteration is a result of “an international criminal conspiracy” and “a straight fraud”. In line with this, the Irish Government confirmed on Monday 4 February that the Garda and fraud specialists had been called in to investigate.
	The shadow Secretary of State passed the details of more British companies alleged to be involved in the scandal to the Serious Organised Crime Agency last Friday and to the FSA on Saturday. On the same Friday, the FSA revealed that the police were involved, but that no live criminal investigation was active. Yesterday, the Secretary of State said that until there was criminal action in this country, the police could not take action. Is that really the case? Will he confirm that he thinks criminals are present everywhere in Europe except the United Kingdom?
	I delayed reference to the first-class and powerful speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott). I want to echo some of her comments. I hope we will not use this debate and crisis as an excuse to tax supermarkets, which, despite their drawbacks, have made affordable, quality food available to ordinary families throughout the country. However, with massive retail power comes huge responsibility—to make sure that the items sold are precisely as described as on the labels. I was glad to hear the Secretary of State echo that sentiment.
	We all see the value of sourcing products locally. Many Members have understandably used this debate to promote local produce, but that is far too complacent—ignoring the realities of economic and time pressures on modern families, simply to advise consumers to buy the ingredients of a lasagne in their corner shops rather than a ready meal at Asda or Tesco. It is also too easy for the Secretary of State to dismiss his responsibilities by saying repeatedly that retailers have ultimate responsibility for the content of food. Unless he wants the “F” removed from DEFRA, it is incumbent on him to carry out the responsibilities he already has.
	I know that the Secretary of State believes in a laissez faire form of government—he thinks that the Government should not get involved in the running of people’s lives. He seems to have taken that a step further, seeming to believe that the Government should not get involved in
	the running of the Government. The FSA is independent, but that does not prevent the Secretary of State’s asking it what kind of testing it plans to carry out.
	I shall wind up now, Mr Deputy Speaker. There are two types of Government: the one whose Ministers are so confident, competent and on top of their briefs that from the Opposition Benches government looks easy. Then there is the other type—the Government whose members never seem well briefed or sure footed, but always seem to be behind the curve, making the wrong decisions too late. Such a Government leave the Opposition with the distinct impression that almost anyone else could do a better job. There is no doubt about which category this Government fall into.

David Heath: In the few moments I have to respond, I should say that this has been a broadly measured and constructive debate, as is entirely appropriate on such a serious issue. It has occasionally been slightly marred by Opposition Front Benchers who wished to introduce a party political element and seemed blithely oblivious to the fact that the systems in place are now precisely the same as those under the previous Government.
	My view is that this is a shared problem and shared response. The problem is shared between the Government, the House, the food companies and the regulators. It is now shared among countries across Europe that are either implicated or the victims of what may or may not be criminal behaviour. It is shared by the police and investigating authorities, which are now looking into what would appear to be—I make that qualification—significant and widespread criminality. I hope that we also share the conviction that there is only one group whose interests are paramount: the consumer, who has been cheated in having taken off the shelf something that was not what was described on the label.
	Despite the occasional rhetorical swoops, there was sufficient common cause across the House. I have looked carefully at the Opposition motion, most of which is a recital of fact and therefore unexceptional. However, one part of it is wrong and suggests the Opposition’s current frame of mind. They call on the
	“Government to ensure that police and fraud specialists investigate the criminal networks involved”.
	It is not for the Government in this country to instruct the police on what they should investigate. It is certainly not for the Government in this country to place requirements on police authorities in other member states as to what they should investigate. On that basis, I invite my colleagues not to support the motion, but I will nevertheless acknowledge the extent to which we agree.
	Let me deal with some of the individual contributions. The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh), who I understand has had to go to a—

Barry Gardiner: Will the Minister give way?

David Heath: No, because the hon. Member for Glasgow South (Mr Harris) took up all my time.
	The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton raised a very important issue that was mentioned by many others, including my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Roger Williams) and the hon. Members for Sherwood (Mr Spencer) and for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish): the importance of the traceability of meat in this country and the systems we have in place. It is incredibly important to emphasise that so far not the slightest suspicion has been raised that cut meat produced in this country is anything other than of very high quality indeed, and we should take some comfort from that.
	The hon. Lady also mentioned trace contamination. We need to look at whether DNA contamination of less than 1% is anything other than environmental contamination that is below a certain threshold. We are taking advice on that, because it is very important that we do not suggest that something is adulterated when, for instance, it has merely been sitting on a butcher’s shelf next to the meat of another species. We have to be careful about that.
	The hon. Member for West Bromwich East (Mr Watson) raised some important points. I will look very carefully at what he said to see whether there is substance there that we need to pursue. My hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire talked about fraud on a European scale and the importance of the police investigation. I absolutely agree.
	The hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) talked about the importance of the consumer, which I mentioned right at the beginning. She then drew some questionable conclusions in terms of public health, but I know that she did so because she wants for her constituents the same assurance that I want for mine. I want my constituents and her constituents to be absolutely assured that food on our supermarket shelves is safe to eat. Safety is the first priority, and then we need composition tests to make sure that it is what it says it is. The tests that we have carried out so far have not given any cause for concern on safety grounds, and she needs to take that back to her constituency.
	The hon. Member for South Thanet (Laura Sandys) took a global view of food prices and raised very important points. The hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) gave a graphic description of some of the processes that are used in the processed meat industry. May I distinguish between what she said and what the hon. Member for Glasgow South said later about mince? Having a higher fat content in mince—British mince has always had it—does not mean that we should describe it as something else. I am sorry, but I do not think it is helpful to the consumer to say, “This is no longer mince—it is mince with fat and collagen added,” or something of that kind. That is the point of the consultation on composition that we are carrying out.
	The hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) spoke with great knowledge about horse passports and the national equine database. She said, as I have said repeatedly, that the national equine database did nothing whatsoever in terms of traceability. If we want to improve the passport system—I think there is a strong case for doing so—we need to look at it not on that basis but on the basis of how passports are issued and their content.
	The hon. Member for Glasgow South talked about an issue of timing to do with the Food Safety Authority of Ireland and said that the Food Standards Agency
	had failed to react. He suggested that the Food Standards Authority of Ireland acted on the basis of intelligence. Let me tell him that it explicitly rejects the suggestion that it was working on the basis of an intelligence-based system, and therefore it was not operating on the basis of suspicion that there was adulteration of material going into the UK. As soon as it had confirmed results, it shared them with the FSA and the FSA shared them with the Government, and we have then had the process that is continuing. We like to work on the basis of evidence before bringing prosecutions, and we like to give the evidence to the police.
	[
	Interruption.
	]
	I am answering the question; indeed, that is the answer. They did not suspect that adulterated meat was going into the UK; they did a routine test and notified us when they had adverse results.
	This House needs to send a message to food businesses that their credibility and reputation are on the line. They need to take the actions that we have agreed with them and, on the issue of convoluted and labyrinthine food supply networks, they ought to consider whether provenance is not a more important issue than profits. I think that they may need to learn that lesson.
	The message to regulators is that we need to ensure that systems in place across Europe work effectively. We need to look at our own systems to see whether they can work better, including the horse passport system, and we need to consider whether the intelligence-based approach needs to be supplemented by regular audit.
	The message to consumers is that they have a right to be sold what it says on the label and a right to products on the supermarket shelf that are, whatever the selling price, safe, wholesome and genuine. The regulatory authorities, the Government and everybody else involved with this—principally the retailers—have to provide the evidence for that and reassure our consumers.

Question put.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 236, Noes 297.

Question accordingly negatived.

John McDonnell: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Government lost in the High Court this morning. The High Court ruled that the Government’s Jobseeker’s Allowance (Employment, Skills and Enterprise Scheme) Regulations 2011 are unlawful. The regulations forced people into unpaid work—workfare—and, if they refused that work as unsuitable in assisting them in gaining employment, they lost their benefits. This morning the regulations were declared unlawful. At midday, the Government put out a written statement:
	“we intend to lay new regulations which will come into force immediately and enable us to continue to refer Jobseekers Allowance claimants to our employment schemes”—
	that is, back on to workfare. Those regulations have not been published yet. I am told that they may be subject to the negative procedure and so will come into immediate force without a vote in the House and with no opportunity to debate them. Could we ask the Government to make a statement to clarify the current position? A large number of people will, as a result of the regulations being ruled unlawful, be able to claim back the benefits they lost as a result of the unlawful penalties that were levelled against them.

Nigel Evans: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his advance notice of that point of order. Those on the Treasury Bench will have heard his desire for a statement to be made on this matter. He has been in touch with the Journal Office and it seems that no regulations have yet been laid. I suggest that he keeps in close touch with the Table Office, which will be able to advise him on how best to pursue this matter.

Infrastructure

Nigel Evans: I inform the House that the Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Rachel Reeves: I beg to move,
	That this House notes with concern the latest GDP figures from the Office for National Statistics, showing that the UK economy has now shrunk in four of the last five quarters; believes that investment in infrastructure is vital to the economy’s short term recovery and long term prosperity; further notes that, half way through the Government’s term of office, many of the major projects promised in the National Infrastructure Plan are yet to start work; further notes the admission of the Deputy Prime Minister, in the House Magazine of 24 January 2013, that the Government cut capital spending too deeply, and that figures from the Office for Budget Responsibility show that in the first three years of this Government’s term it has spent £12.8 billion less in capital investment than the last Government had planned; further believes that private sector investment has also been hit by weak demand and confidence in the UK’s flat-lining economy, and uncertainty resulting from the Treasury’s dithering, delay and lack of leadership; welcomes the independent review of long-term infrastructure planning undertaken by Sir John Armitt; and calls on the Government to act now to kick start the UK’s flat-lining economy by genuinely bringing forward infrastructure investment including building thousands more affordable homes.
	We have secured the debate to urge the Government to take action to invest in infrastructure projects to create jobs and to boost confidence in our flagging economy, and to strengthen our productivity and competitiveness for the future. We all recognise the importance of infrastructure investment. The Prime Minister has said that
	“getting construction projects off the ground is critical.”
	The Chancellor agrees, saying that
	“investing in Britain’s economic future is the priority of this Government”
	and adding that infrastructure investment was critical in
	“laying the foundations for future economic success.”
	It should come as no surprise that the Government’s grand rhetoric has not been matched by grand actions. Dithering without a strategy for growth, they have cut too far and too fast, choking off demand and stifling the economic recovery.

Rob Wilson: Will the hon. Lady join me in thanking the Chancellor and the Government for the £600 million Heathrow link investment that they will be making in my constituency?

Rachel Reeves: Maybe the hon. Gentleman would like to intervene again and tell me when that investment is going to happen. The reality is that so much of the investment is not happening right now when we need jobs and growth. We have lost more than 120,000 construction jobs since the Government came to power.

Rob Wilson: I thank the hon. Lady for giving way a second time. Would she like to join me in welcoming the £12 million investment in the University Technical college that is opening in September in my constituency?

Rachel Reeves: That intervention says it all. It is all jam tomorrow from this Government.
	The last set of GDP figures demonstrate the scale of the Government’s economic failure. The economy shrank by 0.3% in the fourth quarter of last year, demonstrating once again the desperate need for a strategy for growth. Since the Chancellor’s spending review two years ago, out of the G20 economies Britain has been 18th out of 20 when it comes to economic growth—worse that the USA, worse than Canada, worse than Germany, worse than France and worse than Turkey. So much for the Prime Minister’s global race.

Anne Main: In the previous Parliament, I was fortunate to serve on the Select Committee on Communities and Local Government. The Committee examined why houses were not being built under the previous Government, and 400,000 planning permissions not implemented. Surely the hon. Lady ought to be looking at what is stopping building. The permissions have not been stopping. The banks were not lending under the previous Government. This is a deeply entrenched position.

Rachel Reeves: House building was down 8% in 2012 and the think-tank Policy Exchange has warned that the Government could end up presiding over the lowest level of house building since the 1920s. That is the record of the hon. Lady’s Government—not one, I would imagine, that she is proud of.
	The Prime Minister says that we are in a global race, but in reality we are hardly out of the starting blocks. The Chancellor has been told time and again—most recently by the International Monetary Fund—that if economic growth undershoots expectations, the Government should boost the economy with greater infrastructure spending. Well, growth has undershot and the economy is shrinking. Over two years, economic growth has been 15 times less than the Chancellor promised in 2010.

Neil Carmichael: Will the shadow Chief Secretary join me in thanking the Chancellor for the £45 million invested in the Stroud to Swindon railway line, work on which has just begun, and which will make a huge difference to my constituency?

Rachel Reeves: I wonder whether the next Government Member to intervene will congratulate the Chancellor on spending £12.8 billion less over three years than the plans he inherited from the previous Labour Government.

Brian H Donohoe: I hope that I do not excite the shadow Minister so much that she delivers her baby early. What does she think about the fact that once again the Government have kicked into the long grass the problems of congestion in air traffic in the south-east? Money could be invested in that without the need to spend any public money. Why are they kicking that into the long grass?

Rachel Reeves: It is being kicked into the long grass because of weak leadership. It is desperately disappointing for businesses wanting to invest today that no decision will be made and no report published from the man charged with conducting the review until the next Parliament.
	The Chancellor should take the IMF’s advice and use the March Budget to rethink the Government’s failed economic plan. We told the Government that to cut too far and too fast would hurt the economic recovery and that the country needed leadership, not warm words. That is why since the Government choked off the economic recovery we have been calling for a boost to jobs and growth by bringing forward infrastructure investment, as the last Labour Government did in the aftermath of the financial crisis.

Jack Dromey: With the Government presiding over the biggest housing crisis in a generation, was it not a mistake to cut £4 billion in affordable housing investment, leading to a 68% collapse in affordable house building, and to reject out of hand the proposal for the 4G licence money to be used to build 100,000 affordable homes, which would have added 1% to GDP and created hundreds of thousands of jobs and which was hailed by the CBI as just what the economy needed?

Rachel Reeves: That is why we urged the Government, before the autumn statement, to use the money from the 4G auction to start building 100,000 new affordable homes and why we urged the Chancellor to use a tax on bank bonuses for a programme for jobs and growth, with further house building and a job guarantee for young people. But the Chancellor did not listen—[Interruption.]Clearly, the Liberal Democrats do not want to listen either. With every project delay, every investor put off and every job lost in the construction sector, we lose ground to our global competitors. With the economy flatlining and no growth over the past year, the case for action is irrefutable. We need to bring forward public investment, create hundreds of thousands of jobs, kick-start the flatlining economy and get the construction industry moving again.

Seema Malhotra: Does my hon. Friend agree that the flatlining of our economy and our failure to invest is having a major impact on young people? In my constituency, there are more people out of work than there were six months ago, and long-term youth unemployment is rising.

Rachel Reeves: Close to 1 million young people are out of work, and one third of them are now long-term unemployed—a waste of their potential and a waste to our economy, as we are losing out on their skills. We so desperately need that economic recovery.
	There is still no sign of the Government sharing the country’s sense of urgency. Only 14% of the 576 projects listed in the Government’s infrastructure pipeline have started and just 1% of those are said to be operational. The Government’s record on infrastructure is a complete and utter shambles. Wherever we look, the strategy is failing to deliver—a perfect storm of uncertainty, incompetence and delay.

Kelvin Hopkins: My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. She is talking about projects. One project that might be considered seriously is the GB freight route—the building of a dedicated rail freight line from the channel tunnel to Glasgow, linking all the industrial areas of Britain and able to take lorries on trains. Will she give that serious consideration?

Rachel Reeves: I know that that is something that my hon. Friend has worked on carefully and is discussing with Ministers and shadow Ministers. It is worth looking at such a scheme.
	The Government’s national infrastructure plan is well worth reading. [Interruption.] Given that even the Deputy Prime Minister says that the Government have got it wrong on infrastructure investment, one would think that the Minister of State, Home Department, the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Mr Browne), might listen to the debate, rather than just chuntering from a sedentary position. The national infrastructure plan exemplifies the vacuum of leadership from this Government, with more projects being kicked into the long grass. Let us take the A14, which was described by the former Transport Secretary as “a crucial strategic route” and
	“a lifeline to international markets.”
	Now the Treasury says that construction might just begin in 2018. The Mersey gateway, which has been highlighted as one of the world’s most important infrastructure projects, has still not had a preferred bidder announced. Today we found out that 45 winning bids for the regional growth fund—the Deputy Prime Minister’s pride and joy—have already walked away from the process, which is taking so long, with millions of pounds of public money gathering dust in Whitehall. Delay, delay, delay.
	That inaction is costing jobs. The construction sector has lost 129,000 jobs since this Tory-led Government came to power. What a waste. No wonder that John Cridland, director general of the CBI, is asking the Government where the diggers on the ground are.

Jonathan Edwards: It was reported in The Guardian recently that total PFI liabilities are likely to be more than £300 billion. Will the hon. Lady confirm that, should the Labour party form the next UK Government, it will not return to PFI?

Rachel Reeves: PFI in my constituency built three new secondary schools and helped to rebuild primary schools, as well as building Sure Start centres. I would not have wanted any of those projects not to go ahead, so I do not share the hon. Gentleman’s criticism.
	It is not just independent outsiders attempting to urge the Chancellor to change course and take action or saying that change is needed. Even the Deputy Prime Minister, in what he described as a “self-critical” mood, has stated:
	“I think we’ve…realised that you actually need, in order to foster a recovery, to try and mobilise as much public and private capital into infrastructure as possible.”
	He did not quite get round to saying sorry for a second time, but at least he has finally stumbled upon the problem. We said that cutting infrastructure spending too far and too fast would stifle the recovery, but the Deputy Prime Minister’s brief lapse of regret came two and a half years too late. That moment of self-realisation will not help the construction worker who has already lost his job, the children waiting for their new school or the new business waiting for improved roads. We do not need mea culpas; we need the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and the Deputy Prime Minister to change course.

Anne Main: rose—

Neil Carmichael: rose—

Rob Wilson: rose—

Rachel Reeves: I have already given way to the hon. Members.

Henry Smith: You haven’t given way to me.

Rachel Reeves: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman. Perhaps he would like to explain why the Government have cut infrastructure spending by £12.8 billion over three years.

Henry Smith: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for allowing me to intervene. Does she welcome the thousands of new houses being built in the Kilnwood Vale neighbourhood in my constituency, in addition to the £26 million upgrade of Three Bridges rail station and the £53 million upgrade of Gatwick rail station, and so on?

Rachel Reeves: The problem is that this is just a wish list. Those things are not happening—as John Cridland says, the diggers are not on the ground. As I have said, housing investment is down 8% in just one year, and 129,000 jobs have been lost in the construction sector. I look forward to hearing Government Members explaining why they are supporting those policies.

Geraint Davies: My hon. Friend will be aware that the Chinese have a five-year plan involving $1.5 trillion of investment in strategic new industry and infrastructure, and that their economy has been growing at 10% a year for 10 years. Is it not time that we took some lessons from growth economies such as China, and indeed Brazil, which is investing some $66 billion in its fiscal stimulus? Let us get on with it.

Rachel Reeves: The economic and political system in China is a bit different from that of the UK, but what we must learn from other countries is that we need a proper industrial strategy if we are going to create the jobs and growth that we need, and if we are going to excel and win the global race that the Prime Minister has talked about.
	Two weeks ago, at Treasury questions, the Chancellor said that I was being “creative” with the facts when I said that he was spending less than Labour planned to on infrastructure investment. He said that I was being misleading on his record on investment. He had to withdraw that slur. Channel 4’s “FactCheck” has looked into the his claims. The verdict is in, and I quote from its conclusion:
	“Latest figures from the ONS show that Mr Osborne’s claim to have spent more on infrastructure than what Labour had planned is wrong.”
	The Chancellor has refused to come to the House to put the record straight, so let us do that now. According to the Office for Budget Responsibility—which the Government set up—the Government are spending £12.8 billion less in capital investment compared with the plans they inherited from the last Labour Government. They are cutting too far and too fast. I am happy to take an intervention on that point.

Anne Main: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Rachel Reeves: Yes, I would like to hear why the Government are spending £12.8 billion less.

Anne Main: The Labour Administration had a target for rail freight interchanges, and the Howbury Park project was given the go-ahead in 2007. However, no work has yet been done. Should not the Labour Government have insisted on proper investment being put into the project, which would have benefited the local area?

Rachel Reeves: I have generously let the hon. Lady have another chance at intervening, but she did not explain why, in the first year of this Parliament, her Government spent £3.2 billion less than the last Labour Government planned to spend, or why, in their second year, her Government spent £2.9 billion less than the amount in the plans they inherited. Nor did she explain why, in the third year of this Parliament, they spent £6.7 billion less than we had planned. When the Chancellor says that he has matched the plans of the last Labour Government, he is just plain wrong.

Brian Binley: I thank the hon. Lady for giving way, and I wish her well with her impending delivery. What figure would she place on the capital expenditure budget for this year, if there were a Labour Government at this time?

Rachel Reeves: In the plan set out by the last Labour Government for 2012-13, the amount was £48.4 billion. In the plan set out by this Government, it is £41.7 billion. We had a plan to halve the deficit during the course of this Parliament. This Government wanted to go further and eliminate the structural deficit in that time. The reality is that they are borrowing more than the amounts set out in the plans left by the last Labour Government. They are not borrowing it to invest in infrastructure, either. They are spending £12.8 billion less on infrastructure than the last Labour Government, but they are spending £13 billion more on social security. Why is that? It is because there are more people out of work and more people claiming tax credits as a result of this Government’s failure to get the economy growing again. They are spending £13 billion more than they had planned to on social security. Is that really what they came into power to do? No, but the reality is that their decision to cut as far and as fast as they did has choked off the economic recovery. The result has been an economy that has flatlined for two years.
	This Government are lethargic in the face of a flatlining economy, and inept in the face of long-term challenges. They came in and abandoned Labour projects, such as the plans for 715 schools, in a tranche of ideologically motivated cuts. Then, having at least partly recognised their mistake, they announced a new school building programme in 2012. Progress is painfully slow, however, with work planned to start only sometime in the spring. More delay. It is simply not good enough. This is a Government without a plan for the present and without a vision for the future—[Interruption.] If any Liberal Democrats would like to intervene, I look forward to hearing from them. [Interruption.] If someone just wants to mutter from a sedentary position and does not have the guts to intervene, that is their problem, not mine. Do we have an intervention from the Liberal Democrats?

Gordon Birtwistle: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. Let me point out to her that spending on PFI schemes amounts to billions and billions of pounds—as I understand it, somewhere in the region of £800 billion—and is totally unaffordable. Is it right to spend money on a hospital—[Interruption.] Opposition Members should listen. Is it right to build a hospital under a PFI scheme whereby at the end of 25 years, we will have paid for it 18 times over? It might have cost £120 million to build, but by the time it is finished it will have cost more than £2 billion. I will not agree to spending money on that basis. We should spend money in the correct manner that is affordable for the people of this country; we should not have to pay for something 18 times over. Would you buy a house and pay for it 18 times over?

Nigel Evans: That means me. Members should speak through the Chair.

Rachel Reeves: I do know how the hon. Gentleman bought his house, but when I bought mine, I had a mortgage because I could not afford to buy it outright. That is why schemes such as PFI were introduced. I am not sure what school, hospital or children’s centre in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency he would prefer not to have opened during the last Labour Government. I bet a lot more of those things opened under the last Labour Government than have been opened under this Conservative and Liberal Democrat Government.
	The reality is that what the Government are doing is hurting business confidence. The director general of the British Chambers of Commerce has described the Government’s plan for infrastructure as
	“hot air, a complete fiction”.

Chris Heaton-Harris: rose—

Rachel Reeves: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman if he would like to explain why even the director general of the British Chambers of Commerce thinks that the Government’s plans are hot air.

Chris Heaton-Harris: I thank the hon. Lady for giving way; she is very much on broadcast rather than reception. On PFI, she mentioned her mortgage, so what would happen to her if she were unable to make the repayments on that mortgage?

Rachel Reeves: I hope the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that the Government are not going to be able to make the repayments on their debt. We know that their triple A rating is under threat, so if this is a warning that the Government are planning on not paying their debts and the deficit back, it will be interesting news.
	The CBI has warned the Government that
	“businesses in Britain are looking for action and we haven’t seen any yet”.
	Yesterday, the monthly index published by BDO showed that business confidence hit a 21-year low. That is the lowest level of business confidence since Norman Lamont was Chancellor and sterling was ejected from the exchange rate mechanism on Black Wednesday in 1992. I am sure that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen will remember that
	day. The Prime Minister certainly does—he was working for the Chancellor at the time. Confidence is now at those low levels again.
	It is now clear: business has lost confidence in this Government, who do not have a plan for jobs or growth. It is hardly surprising, then, that the Government are failing to attract the private sector funds they need for their infrastructure investment. It is worth remembering how the Government’s plan to target £20 billion of pension funds for investment is going. Responding to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Gordon Banks), the Chief Secretary to the Treasury had to tell us that the Government were on course for just a 10th of their original target: £2 billion out of £20 billion raised.
	The Government lack the policy framework to attract the long-term investment we need. Changes such as cuts to feed-in tariffs have had a detrimental impact on low-carbon investment. The CBI warned the Government that such measures have been
	“damaging to business confidence, with implications not just for immediate investment decisions but for longer-term trust in government policy”.
	It is no wonder that, last year, 50 companies, investors and industry bodies wrote to the Chancellor asking him to set a firm decarbonisation target for 2030 to give investors the confidence they needed. On energy policy, the Institution of Engineering and Technology has been clear in saying:
	“Short-term uncertainty around UK energy policy…is very unhelpful and has the potential to… delay much-needed investment in all forms of energy infrastructure.”
	According to the findings of a poll by KPMG, two thirds of businesses believe that the UK’s energy and water infrastructure is unlikely to get any better because of uncertainty about the policy framework.
	From the business community, we hear resounding frustration when it comes to the Government’s infrastructure policy. The Government do not seem to understand that businesses long for certainty when attempting to grow, employ more people and build for the future. Those are the people and businesses that we need to encourage, not put off, and infrastructure is vital to that, but the Government’s ideological decision to cut infrastructure investment further and faster is hampering confidence rather than nurturing it.
	Small businesses, the engines of growth, are still waiting for the Government to roll out universal broadband. The Government abandoned the commitment from the last Labour Government to provide broadband for virtually every household by 2012. When business needs this Government, they are nowhere to be found.
	Fundamentally, the Government fail to understand the need for a comprehensive and long-term plan to build Britain’s infrastructure for the 21st century. That is why the Labour party has commissioned Sir John Armitt, chair of the Olympic Delivery Authority, to consider how long-term infrastructure decision making, planning, delivery and finance can be radically improved. The Olympics taught us what we could achieve together as one nation. With the right leadership and the right investment, and by building consensus around the long-term projects that are essential for our energy, transport and housing needs, we can compete globally, with a national
	infrastructure that is fit for the 21st century. Labour is therefore making the case for a British investment bank, which would help to support long-term finance for British businesses so that they could take risks and grow. That is especially urgent given that net lending to businesses has fallen by a staggering £13.5 billion over the last year.
	Investing in infrastructure is about more than the tarmac on our roads or the bricks that make up our schools. It is about creating skilled jobs for our youngsters. It is about supporting the entrepreneurs who want to export and grow their businesses. It is about ensuring we can grow and operate across the globe. It is about attracting investment from abroad. It is about being ambitious in the face of challenges, and attempting to build a better country for the next generation.
	The Prime Minister said in his new year address:
	“This is, quite simply, a government in a hurry. And there’s a reason for that. Britain is in a global race to succeed today.”
	Whichever way we look at it, however, this Government do not seem to be in a hurry to invest in our country’s infrastructure. Indeed, as I said earlier, they are spending £12.8 billion less on capital investment than the amount specified in the plans that they inherited from the last Government, which amounts to an 8% cut. A Government in a hurry? Hardly. Inertia is the watchword of this Government, at a time when what we need is action.
	When other countries are investing in their infrastructure, aware of the benefits, this Government dither. On infrastructure, as on so much else, the country needs decisive leadership. Instead, we get incompetence, delay and cuts. It is time that we changed course.

Nigel Evans: Before I call the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, I should inform the House that a speaking time limit for Back Benchers will be announced when he has sat down. I advise Members not to think much beyond eight minutes for the moment.

Greg Clark: I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “House” to the end of the Question and add:
	“notes that the previous administration’s final Budget planned to cut capital investment by 6 per cent more than this Government’s latest plans, in the period 2010 to 2014; further notes that this Government has increased capital plans by £20 billion at the Spending Review and at the last two Autumn Statements, by taking tough but necessary decisions to cut current spending, with a result that public investment as a share of GDP will be higher on average over this Parliament than it was under the previous administration; further notes that this Government announced £5.5 billion of extra infrastructure investment in the last Autumn Statement, including £1.5 billion for roads, £1 billion for new schools, £900 million for science and £1.8 billion for housing and local infrastructure; further notes that it has supported the largest investment in the railways since Victorian times under the High Level Output Specification; further notes that no national infrastructure plan existed under the previous administration whereas this Government has set out for the first time a multi-year long-term strategy for the UK’s infrastructure, with over 50 per cent of the Government’s top 40 projects and programmes due to be in construction, procurement or completed by the end of 2014-15; and believes that sweeping away red tape and developing new finance initiatives such as the UK Guarantees Scheme will also support up to £40 billion of extra important projects”.
	I listened attentively to the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), but there is little that can be said by Labour Members that should not start with an apology. Infrastructure, more than most issues, is an area of policy in which the present is haunted by the decisions of the past. By their very nature, major infrastructure projects must be planned years in advance, capital spending budgets must be allocated years in advance and private sector investment must be secured years in advance. All those things require a Government who can look ahead, anticipate the needs of the future, and make the necessary decisions in a timely fashion.

Rachel Reeves: Plans do need to be made for the future, so why did the Government cancel the building of 715 schools under the Building Schools for the Future scheme when they came to power?

Greg Clark: I should have thought that in two and a half years the hon. Lady would have learned the lesson from that. The deficit that Labour was running was greater than the deficit in any other G7 country. We needed to sort that out, and to create confidence in our economy. If Labour Members have not learned the lesson after two and a half years, what hope is there for the future?
	The economic arguments advanced from the Opposition Benches sometimes purport to draw on the wisdom of John Maynard Keynes, but Keynes recommended that Governments should run a surplus in the good times, enabling spending, especially on infrastructure, to take place in the lean years.

Brian Binley: The Opposition are trying to eradicate history before 2010. Will the Financial Secretary estimate what the level of their capital revenue spending would have been this year, on the basis of the mess they left us in?

Greg Clark: Our capital revenue spending would have been determined by a visit to the International Monetary Fund if we had followed the course set by the Opposition.
	In the years prior to the financial crisis the previous Government ran the biggest structural deficit in the G7. Despite the denials of the shadow Chancellor, that is a matter of record, and the fact that he refuses to acknowledge what has now been made very clear merits an apology.
	One of the most enduring mysteries of the 13 years in which Labour was in office is what they did with the money. We would think that 13 years in which they spent, taxed and borrowed like no peacetime Government before would at least have left us with an infrastructure that we could have been proud of and that would have been world-beating.

Neil Carmichael: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the almost 30 million jobs we now have in this country will benefit enormously from the fact that we are at last getting something done about broadband, a massively important infrastructure project? We are spending a huge amount on it, and just this week I heard about how much progress we are making in Gloucestershire.

Greg Clark: My hon. Friend is right. Not just in our cities, but also in our rural areas, during Labour’s 13 years in office broadband went backwards relative to the rest of the world. We are now addressing that and making progress.

Sheila Gilmore: Will the right hon. Gentleman concede that during much of the Labour Government’s period in office a good deal of debt was repaid? That was one of the things that was done, and in my constituency people can point to new schools and new buildings, so there is something to be seen. Is that not the case in his constituency?

Greg Clark: The hon. Lady seems to be unaware of the fact that under the last Labour Government the national debt almost trebled. That is the legacy that they left and with which this Government are dealing. Over 13 years, they borrowed so much they left us with a deficit that was as big as that of Greece, and bigger than that of Spain, Portugal or Italy.
	We would think that there would be something to show for all that money spent. We would think our roads, railways and power stations would be at least as good as those of Spain, Portugal and Italy. That, at least, would be a consolation prize: modern, up-to-date national infrastructure available to support British business and help us to generate the billions of pounds we need to pay off the deficit and reduce our debts.

Helen Goodman: I have never heard such an absurd statement in this Chamber. Of course the increase in the debt in the last two years of the Labour Government did not produce new roads; that is because it went into supporting the banks, and if we had not done that, we would have had a banking collapse.

Greg Clark: The hon. Lady did not hear what I said. The structural deficit the Labour Government ran was in place before the financial crisis. That is the root of the problems we now face.
	I do not for a moment want to suggest those 13 years did not result in a transformation of Britain’s position in respect of infrastructure. It was transformed, all right: the quality of our infrastructure declined in relation to that of our world competitors.

Nick Raynsford: Will the right hon. Gentleman address the issue of rail and tell the House what his party did about High Speed 1 and Crossrail when it was in government? Will he congratulate the last Government on completing HS1—the first new high-speed rail link to the channel tunnel, some 15 years after the channel tunnel was opened—and on starting the Crossrail scheme, which is essential to the future of London? How can he possibly repudiate that record of achievement?

Greg Clark: That was a good example of cross-party support, and the idea that it was some unilateral initiative by the Labour party is for the birds. We should have been more ambitious; we should have gone further and faster. It will be 15 years before we can count on the first trains running on High Speed 2. Why were those plans not advanced by the previous Government from the beginning? After 13 years we could have been looking forward to seeing progress in a couple of years’ time, rather than waiting for this Government to lay the necessary legislation.

Russell Brown: Perhaps I can answer the Minister’s question. The investment that the previous Labour Government put into the west coast main line was swallowing up money that could have been spent elsewhere. He is right about investment in schools, hospitals and so on, but will he tell the House what the previous Conservative Government’s idea was for funding capital projects? Am I correct in saying that it was private finance initiatives—millions spent but not a brick laid?

Greg Clark: It is not clear to me whether the hon. Gentleman is criticising PFI. If PFI was initiated by the previous Conservative Government, the champion of it—the party that relied on it and put it off balance sheet, and that misused it and mortgaged the future of our country—was clearly the Labour party.
	After 13 years of the Labour Government our roads were more congested, our railways were creaking, house building was at its lowest level since the 1920s and electricity customers were facing black-outs for the first time since before the war. Our great cities were as poorly connected as they had been a century earlier, while across Europe and the world, new roads and railways brought cities together in 21st-century networks of prosperity. As the excellent report published recently by the London School of Economics states,
	“infrastructure has been neglected, particularly in the areas of transport and energy. For example, more than a fifth of the UK’s electricity-generating capacity will go out of commission over the next decade and Ofgem…has warned of power shortages by 2015.”
	That is the reflection after 13 years of neglect of Britain’s infrastructure.

Clive Betts: Will the Minister give way?

Greg Clark: Of course I will give way to my friend the Chairman of the Communities and Local Government Committee.

Clive Betts: I hope to find a bit of common ground with the Minister. He knows that local authority borrowing is covered by prudential guidelines, apart from borrowing for house building, which is covered by a separate cap imposed by the Treasury. Given that housing finance accounts are now separate, if a local authority were allowed to borrow up to the prudential limits for house building, it could potentially borrow to build another 60,000 homes without any cost to the Treasury. In other countries, that would not even count as Government borrowing. Is the Minister prepared to look at that as one way of kick-starting house building and creating more jobs in the construction industry?

Greg Clark: The hon. Gentleman knows that it does count as Government borrowing in this country, which constrains this Government as it did the previous Government. Being a fair man he will be the first to acknowledge that the work I have been doing with our eight core cities has found innovative ways through tax increment financing and other schemes to invest in infrastructure in anticipation of some of the revenues associated with that. We are doing everything we can and have had some success in being creative in that regard.
	As Europe and the developing world streaked ahead, the gulf in this country between London and the north widened under Labour. Only one of the eight largest cities outside London has an income per head that is above the country’s national average, which is in marked contrast to the norm on the continent of Europe. Seven out of the eight biggest German cities outside Berlin, and six out of the eight biggest cities in Italy, have an income per head that is above the national average. In France, that is true for half the largest cities, and for the others the figure is close to the national average. In other countries around Europe and the world, great cities outside the capital are motors of growth and drive the local economy. In this country, the legacy of 13 years of Labour is that the gulf with the north and in our cities across the country has widened and is a source of shame.

Helen Goodman: I am sorry to correct the Minister for the second time, but the rate of growth in the north-east went from being the lowest of the regions during the 1990s to the second highest during the last decade. Only two English regions grew faster than the national average under the Labour Government—London and the north-east.

Greg Clark: I do not quite understand the basis of the hon. Lady’s intervention, because the point I was making was precisely about the gulf between the capital and our provincial cities, and she has pointed out that London streaked ahead. By contrast, in other countries the performance of the regional economy kept pace with the capital, and that is something I want to champion; I want to encourage our provincial cities to be the equal of the capital on growth. I know she will recognise that in the past two years, at least, the performance of my native north-east, the place she represents, has indeed outstripped the rest of the country on creating jobs.

Geraint Davies: On the basis of what the Minister has said, does he agree that Wales should get its fair share of the High Speed 2 investment? It will run from the south to the north of England at a cost of £33 billion, and our fair share would be about £1.9 billion. On the basis of what he has just said, does he not agree that Wales needs a fair deal and that extra £2 billion?

Greg Clark: The hon. Gentleman is a fair man. He will know that the plans to electrify the Great Western railway and the railways in the valleys represent an important investment—I am sure he would acknowledge that—and a big contribution to the economic revival of Wales. It is very important that they should do that.
	The divergence between London and the south-east, and the rest of the country is not a record of which to be proud. In the most difficult of circumstances, this Government are having to find the money to build the infrastructure that should already have been put in place during these years of plenty, speeding Britain to recovery. By failing to control current spending in the good times, the legacy of the previous Labour Government was not just a record deficit, but an infrastructure backlog and reduced capital budgets to pay for it. We need to invest more in infrastructure. Nick Pearce, of Labour’s favourite think-tank, the Institute for Public Policy Research, has said that the
	“cut…was a decision of the last Labour government which the Coalition inherited”.
	We need to remember that successful infrastructure investment does not begin with the allocation of budgets, but with clear-sighted, strategic decision making.
	Let me give just two examples of the way in which Labour, over 13 years, failed to address the strategic need for leadership on infrastructure, the first of which relates to roads. When Labour was first elected, John Prescott was appointed as Secretary of State and soon took charge of transport. One of his first actions was to cancel almost all approved road schemes, all across the country, including the dualling of the A21 in my constituency. The reason was not that the Government did not have the cash. I am pleased to say that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) had left the economy in rude health and so they were in a good position. These road schemes were cancelled, along with many others, because John Prescott had fallen under the spell of a doctrine that said, “If you build more roads, they will only attract more traffic, so you should not build them in the first place.”

Andy Sawford: As I have told the Minister before, Corby, in east Northamptonshire, is the most difficult place in the country for a young person to find work. The level of youth unemployment in my constituency has rocketed. Does he recognise how completely out of touch he looks to those young people when he talks about policy 15 years ago, whatever its rights and wrongs, rather than addressing the here and now? He talks about having the political will to take forward infrastructure projects. Was John Longworth wrong—I think he was right—when he said recently, speaking for the CBI, that this Government lack the political will to drive through infrastructure projects?

Greg Clark: The hon. Gentleman will know that infrastructure is particularly important to Corby, and the link road that is to be built there is very important to that. He will also know that the increase in youth unemployment of 17% that happened under the Government he supported has contributed to the situation he describes.
	Let me address the point of strategic leadership. How can we have long-term leadership and long-term vision for the future of our country, when important economic contributions to success, such as road schemes, are cancelled? That lunacy persisted for years, as our roads became more congested, to the detriment of the environment as well as the economy. It was not until years had passed that that nonsense was recanted by Lord Prescott, the then Deputy Prime Minister, and we decided that, after all, more traffic required more and better roads.

Anne Main: Did the Minister note that the list of needs for strategic infrastructure put forward by the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) did not include the requirements of the location? There is no point in our having strategic infrastructure just where there happens to be a need for jobs if it is not where we strategically need to place the infrastructure. That should be crucial to our decision making.

Greg Clark: My hon. Friend is right, and what she says makes the point I am making: a long-term strategic view of where we need to invest is crucial. Unfortunately,
	by the time the then Deputy Prime Minister had decided that we did need to have new roads after all, he had fallen prey to a new fad, regional assemblies—remember them? Having created those unnecessary and unwanted bureaucracies, they needed to be given something to do. What were they given to do? They were given the task of reviewing and prioritising every proposed regional road scheme that had previously been about to proceed. Projects that had been about to commence were delayed for years as regional bureaucrats invented methodologies to reprioritise them. The result was that, 13 years after Labour took office, the A21 road scheme in my constituency and countless other projects around the country languished undelivered.
	The Opposition motion talks about dither and delay, which is pretty ripe stuff considering the sorry saga of their roads policy and, for that matter, their stewardship of British energy policy. In July 2009, after 12 years in office, the then Government announced that they expected to have to resort to power cuts in the years ahead. They even published a chart in their strategy for energy predicting an annual shortfall of 3,000 MWh by 2017—a truly shameful and damaging admission for the Government of a developed nation after 12 years in power.
	How did things reach that point? As on the economy, when it came to infrastructure, the previous Administration took a typically ostrich-like pose to the challenges of the future. They knew for 12 years that, for example, most of our nuclear power stations and most of our polluting coal-fired power stations would have to close in the decade ahead—indeed, they signed the agreement to close down those power plants—but, unbelievably, by the time they finally made up their mind about nuclear new build, it was already too late to have the new stations up and running before the old ones closed down. How is that for dither and delay? They did not even get around to the long overdue reform of energy markets on which investment in new capacity depends. That surely is something that marks the record of Labour’s first and last Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, whose name escapes me just now.
	This Government have recognised the importance of infrastructure to the long-term prosperity of the British economy in a way that Labour never understood. We have published for the first time a national infrastructure plan, comprising £310 billion of investment in the most strategically important projects—keeping in mind the point my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) made about the importance of looking ahead and looking at where those investments are needed—in sectors such as transport, energy and communications in the period to 2015 and beyond. The man who delivered the Olympics in east London with such spectacular success, Lord Deighton, is the Minister in charge of implementing that plan.
	Despite inheriting the most disastrous set of public finances that any Government have bequeathed to their successors outside wartime, we are not only investing in infrastructure, but increasing that investment. Public sector infrastructure investment from 2010 to 2012 was £33 billion a year, which is £4 billion more than during the previous Parliament, and as the National Audit Office states in its report, “Planning for economic infrastructure”:
	“Future investment is expected to exceed recent levels.”
	Last year’s autumn statement included a further £5.5 billion of investment, including £1.5 billion for the strategic road network. That includes upgrades to the M1, the M3, the M6 and the A60 at Immingham; £378 million to upgrade the A1 between Leeming and Barton, as part of a much needed drive to bring the A1 up to motorway standard between Newcastle and the M25; a new link between the A5 and M1; and dualling of the A30. On 27 of the road and rail schemes announced in the 2011 autumn statement either construction has already started or work is due to begin this year, including on the A453 widening, the A11 Fiveways to Thetford improvement, and the A43 Corby link road, which will be of interest to the hon. Member for Corby (Andy Sawford).
	This Government are ushering in the largest programme of investment in the railways since Victorian times, with £9.5 billion of capital investment allocated from 2014 to 2019. That includes £1 billion to electrify the Great Western line between London and south Wales, as the hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) will recognise; £500 million for the north-west and trans-Pennine electrification scheme, for which work is already under way; £800 million to electrify the midland main line and increase its speed, which I would have thought the hon. Member for Corby would welcome; and £500 million for the northern hub, which is of benefit to all the cross-Pennine services.
	This Government are committed to investing in Britain’s infrastructure for the long term. The first phase of High Speed 1 will be followed by phase 2, which will revolutionise rail travel in Britain, with 211 miles of new track. I am surprised that the Opposition spokesperson, a Leeds MP, did not mention in her speech a project that will link Birmingham to Leeds and Manchester, create five new stations, and cut journey times from Birmingham to Leeds, for example, from two hours to one hour. I should have thought that the hon. Member for Leeds West would mention that. I should have thought that northern MPs would mention the cut in journey times from London to Manchester from two hours eight minutes to one hour eight minutes. The hon. Lady talks about the time it takes to build the track. If we had commenced in 1997, when Labour took power, we could be looking forward to buying our tickets for that railway now.

Rob Wilson: My right hon. Friend is delivering a powerful response. In his list of major infrastructure projects, he forgot to mention Reading station, an £800 million investment, and Heathrow rail at £600 million. He mentioned the £1 billion electrification project to south Wales. Will he join me in asking the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) to apologise for her comments about Reading UTC? It was disappointing to see her laughing at such an investment in skills when I raised it earlier.

Greg Clark: It is disappointing when the Opposition treat these things as matters of levity rather than of seriousness that should be pursued. I neglected to mention the improvements to Reading station only because if I were to list all the investments that are taking place, I would detain the House for longer than I have done already.
	Had Labour in government taken a greater interest in the long-term future of our railways and of our cities and begun action immediately when it took office, we could have been looking at a high-speed line to Birmingham and beyond opening before the end of this Parliament. High-speed rail is a long-term project. It takes a long time to execute, but even in the two and a half years that this Government have been in office, we have increased the pace of delivery on the ground. As well as six national road schemes funded since October 2010, 17 local transport schemes approved by the Government are already under construction, including the Mansfield interchange, the Kingskerswell bypass and the Portsmouth northern road bridge, and by May 2015, 36 of these vital new schemes will be open.
	We are changing the way that decisions are made in funding infrastructure investment. Why should it be the case, as it has been for the past 13 years, that our great cities should have to come cap in hand to London to beg for the investment that they need? Our programme of city deals has given the right of initiative back to the civic and business leaders of the cities themselves. Greater Manchester is, as a result, investing over £2 billion of its own resources in transport infrastructure, and able to do so because it has negotiated a city deal that allows it to share directly in the increased prosperity of the area that would otherwise flow to the Treasury. City deals have been struck with each of the eight biggest English cities outside London, and I am currently examining expressions of interest from 20 more cities, from Plymouth to Sunderland, from Preston to Portsmouth.

Geraint Davies: I thank the Minister for his generosity in giving way. He mentions the city deals, where the cities invest and get a share of the economic added value. Is that something the Government might consider for Wales so that with investment in economic development, we could get a share back and reinvest?

Greg Clark: There is a Government of the Welsh Assembly led by the hon. Gentleman’s party. I commend the example that we have put forward in this country. Our close working with each of the leaders of the eight cities has achieved very encouraging results to date. I dare say the hon. Gentleman can go back to Wales and commend that to his colleagues.
	The way that investments can be financed has also been transformed for the better. Labour saddled future generations with PFI debts of £279 billion, of which less than £40 billion has been paid off, and which cost at least five times and often more than the original project cost of the underlying investment.

Sheila Gilmore: Will the Minister give way?

Greg Clark: I have given way to the hon. Lady.
	Our programme of infrastructure guarantees has made available £40 billion to underpin important projects, of which £10 billion of investments have already been pre-qualified only months after the initiative was begun. This will unlock vital investment, such as the £1 billion extension to the Northern line in Battersea. On energy policy, our reforms are driving investment in new capacity, not only in generation, but in energy efficiency and extraction. Our energy industry is now alive again—a new start after years of neglect under Labour.
	All Governments are stewards of the country that elects them. The test of their stewardship is whether they leave their country better equipped and better prepared to prosper in the future through having taken the long-term decisions on which major infrastructure investment depends. In two short years, Britain’s reputation for infrastructure has been transformed. Having plummeted down the international league table of countries rated by their infrastructure, we are now climbing it again. The rest of the world has seen this country shaking off the torpor of the past. After more than a decade of inaction, we are once more laying the foundations of the future.

Nigel Evans: I inform Members that there is an eight-minute limit on speeches.

Geraint Davies: What a ragbag of complacency and distorted history we have heard. All of us will surely remember that, pre-1997, we were under a Government with problems of massive unemployment, repossessions, companies going bust and people dying as they waited for operations. The reason was that people were not working and paying tax—debt and taxes were going up and public services were being cut. From 1997 to 2008, there was an unprecedented period of economic growth, thanks to a Labour Government’s getting people back to work. People were then paying tax and the money was reinvested in jobs and public services.
	In 2008, the sub-prime debt tsunami hit our shores; if it had not been for Mr Obama and my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), who invoked the fiscal stimulus, we would have gone into a world depression instead of a mild recession, which ended in 2010 with the fragile growth inherited by the coalition Government. They then wasted that opportunity by immediately announcing that half a million people in the public services would be sacked. They did not say when or who, so people stopped spending money. Consumer demand went down to the floor and since then growth has stagnated. The result, of course, is that tax revenues have fallen, debt has risen and more people are on the dole.
	We hear figures that claim that more people are in jobs, but how are more people in jobs when there has been no increase in production? The simple answer is that people who used to be in full-time jobs now have two part-time jobs. The situation is a complete mess. The amount of infrastructure investment was cut in the first two years of the Government. There are proposals for more infrastructure investment, which I want, but the proof of the pudding is in the eating—we will believe it when it comes.
	I want to make a couple of quick comments about my own area. It is my firm contention that Wales should get its fair share of HS2—£1.9 billion. I welcome the electrification to Swansea, which has been mentioned. I am also interested in city regions and more investment in those, and I welcome those thoughts. More investment is needed in the M4 in south Wales, around Newport and Port Talbot, to speed up business, commuter and tourist flows and to spark more investment. I would like
	to see an evaluation, which has been promised to me by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, of the Severn bridge tolls. If the Government paid for them, would they recover the money from more income tax and lower benefits because of increased jobs? The tolls are simply a tax on trade between Wales and England.
	I move swiftly on. As I said in an intervention, we should look further afield to the emerging economies, which are growing at an enormous rate. I appreciate that we do not have the Chinese political system, but we could look closely at the Chinese commitment to, and focus on, investment in research and development. Brazil has; it is investing $5.3 billion in renewable energy and biotech and becoming a world leader. China’s investment has meant that certain US and European companies that used to lead in solar power are being taken out. We need to think strategically about how to invest in both the infrastructure and the innovation agenda.
	I make no apology for again mentioning Swansea, where, in a fine example of strategic investment, the European Investment Bank is investing to enable an overall investment of £250 million in a second campus at Swansea university. The university is linked up with industrial partnerships in modern manufacturing, green technology, biotech, and so on—new, cutting-edge, exportable technologies which, interestingly, are the very areas that Brazil and China are looking at.
	This is not just a matter of spades in the ground, and roads and railways. I welcome roads and railways, as well as flood defences and the like, but it is also about making rational choices and investing in infrastructure alongside innovation. When we look at the migration of global companies and where they go, it is clear that it is partly about infrastructure, partly about cutting-edge research and development, and partly about markets. We need to get our mix right.
	On housing, the Government need to remember that when one looks at the accounts, one needs to look at the balance sheet. If we invest in housing, then clearly we have an asset. Looking at the balance sheet and the net liabilities, we see houses as assets for the future that we need to drive down people’s rents and give them somewhere to live and the stability to work and have jobs. I encourage the Government to look at more innovative housing schemes in the United States whereby a local authority will provide the land and then a property company will come along with a shared equity and spend the money on building houses, half of which will be social housing and the other half private houses. The public sector then ends up with free council houses, an income stream from the private houses, and half the overall equity. This is also supported by pension funds for long-term rental opportunities.
	There are enormous opportunities for bringing in outside capital investment from countries with surpluses, be it from oil or trade. Countries such as Qatar are looking to invest in tourism infrastructure and cultural infrastructure so that downstream, when the oil runs out, they will have alternative income streams. We should be creatively looking at that rather then saying, “Oh no, we can’t afford it.” We need to invest to increase our trajectory of economic growth, and that includes things such as schools. It is very sad that the preparatory work done by the previous Government through Building Schools for the Future was dashed, and it is now being
	looked at again. Investment in hospitals, keeping workers in work and keeping people in good condition, is clearly a good investment as well.
	The other key strategic investment is the internet. People running companies in costly and congested London can now consider the possibility of going down a high-speed route on an electrified railway to sunny Swansea and locating there on the internet, outside the cost and congestion, helping us to spread out our economy. This is the strategic approach that we need to take, but we very much need to up our game.

Anne Main: I profoundly disagree with the motion, particularly what it says about “dithering” and “delay”. I am all for a bit of dithering and delay, but I would call it caution and sensible planning. I am speaking up for the environment because I want us to take a considered approach to planning as well as kick-starting our economy. Carpenters have the old adage, “Measure twice and cut once.” We should be very careful that we get our infrastructure right rather than just dashing forward and building on any old place.
	The motion stresses the need to get Britain building, but we need to have a cohesive approach, not a mad dash for growth without considering local communities or what is actually needed. I am concerned that we are intrinsically entwining planning and the Treasury. I want to make sure that we are giving these matters due consideration and are not trampling over communities, historic landscapes, and, importantly, the green belt, but getting our infrastructure right and getting it in the right place.
	I want the infrastructure debate to be associated with economic benefit, local regeneration and jobs, but never to lose sight of the environment. The two are intrinsically linked. Local communities need to ensure that plans are not granted in a hasty fashion just to join the ranks of unimplemented or badly located permissions. The absence of a joined-up approach to getting our infrastructure right and ensuring that there are full appraisals of alternative sites for large, private-funded proposals, such as those for rail freight interchanges, is likely to result in a developer-led scramble to see who can get their project through first, and it will often not end up on the best site for the local area or for national economic growth. That can also affect investment in other sites that may be more suitable, but which are starved of potential investment as investors are holding fire in case another rival site gets permission through the planning system.
	I want to make sure that we ask where we need to deliver such infrastructure in Britain. It is obvious that large infrastructure projects can create jobs and they should, if possible, be based in those areas where there is a need for those jobs, while at the same time doing minimum harm to the environment. That would be a win-win situation for everyone.
	There has been a “minded to grant” decision on a rail freight terminal in my constituency. According to the developer of the site, it will create more than 3,000 jobs, the vast majority of which will be blue collar. Such a development could—I agree with the Labour party on this—provide a considerable boost for a struggling local area if it had the work force. It would be a shot in the arm for an area that needed those jobs. In St Albans,
	however, we are fortunate to have an unemployment rate of just 2.5% and the vast majority of those 1,155 people are white-collar workers. In fact, we have a deficit of blue-collar workers. Beyond that, neither my constituents—some of whom would be situated 100 metres from the development—nor Hertfordshire county council want the site, we are not a regeneration area, and the site will depress our local house prices, concrete over 10% of our green belt and compromise commuter routes into London.
	The site has had three refusals, but on the Friday before Christmas, there was a volte-face and the “minded to grant” decision was made. Residents were stunned, because, if we compare and contrast the situation with that of a nearby site in Upper Sundon, just a few miles north of St Albans, we will see—this may be coincidental —that it has all the supposed national benefits that I believe we should be looking for and none of the drawbacks, or very few of them. The site is located in an old quarry—it is not on the green belt—and a ready, accessible work force, who would not need to travel in an unsustainable fashion, want it. It is also on the M1, which I am pleased to say is being upgraded, as we have heard from the Government today.
	The site is in the central Bedfordshire development plan and has the support of the council, which would make the planning process simple and, I hope, amicable. Luton airport is also nearby, which is also looking to expand. The site will have easy accessibility to roads and road freight. From the economic point of view, the site is located near Luton, where the most recent figures show that 5.6% of the population are unemployed, most of them blue-collar workers.
	I want to marry up those two happy coincidences, but I am concerned that the prevailing mood—driven by the Opposition in particular—is that, in the name of economic necessity, we must give permission to build at whatever cost. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) would not let me intervene when I wanted to ask her whether she agreed—

Rachel Reeves: I did!

Anne Main: The hon. Lady’s list did not include the point that economic infrastructure should be put in the correct place.

Rachel Reeves: Of course it should.

Anne Main: The hon. Lady says from a sedentary position that it should.

Rachel Reeves: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Anne Main: I will take another minute from the hon. Lady.

Rachel Reeves: Of course infrastructure investment should be in the right place, but there is no risk of any infrastructure under this Government. That is the problem that we have been trying to highlight today, and the hon. Lady seems to welcome that lack of investment.

Anne Main: I point out to the hon. Lady that in 2007, under her Government, the Infrastructure Planning Commission granted the decision to build Howbery
	park, against much opposition from local residents, on the green belt, on the basis that the Strategic Rail Authority said that it should be situated just about there. However, not a shovel has been turned on that development —the previous Government did nothing about it. I do not see why we should not have a strict rule that infrastructure must be placed exactly where it is needed, not where a developer happens to want it, which may lead to a situation such as that in Alconbury, which ended up with the Trojan horse of a business development park because it never got the rail links it was promised. That is not what we should be doing with our infrastructure. It should be in the right place and linked to the right work force.
	If we are going to allow the development of much-needed housing, we should also look at why we have 142,000 unimplemented planning permissions that have already been granted. Across England, the figure is up to 400,000. Our priority should be to look at what has already been granted and ask why it was not built in the first place or why it was not built according to the planning permission that was granted to it, as in the case of Alconbury. If we do not make sure that infrastructure is correctly located, future generations will judge whether we had proper stewardship of our countryside.
	We should examine historical permissions, both for large-scale infrastructure developments and large housing developments, that have not come to fruition. We must not just speed up the planning process and churn out more permissions that can be banked for five years, because that does not help the economy by ensuring that development happens where there is economic need and where there are people who can take up the job opportunities that are created.
	A clear-sighted strategic decision-making process that was more “steady as she goes” would give investors confidence that they would not end up with permissions granted but never see the developments delivered properly in the way that was envisaged. If people want to get involved in strategic rail, there are many spin-offs such as people working on the site and promises of additional infrastructure upgrades to support the development. However, all those things fail if the developer never puts a spade in the ground and does not deliver the site as it was envisaged. All the potential jobs that are linked to such planning permissions never actually happen.
	That has happened under previous Governments, and not only the last Government. However, the Opposition are now arguing that we should rush through more planning permissions and accuse this Government of dithering. I ask the Treasury to please be a bit more cautious and not to do what the previous Government did in allowing loads of permissions to be granted that never deliver what they should deliver. We should consider applications slowly, cautiously and carefully to ensure that instead of a developer pushing the area where he would like to build, developments are built where we want them to be built and where communities want them to be built. That would be in the best interests of this country as a whole.
	To return to the site in St Albans, it will not benefit my constituency one jot to have a rail freight interchange. It would probably benefit Sundon quarry and the surrounding area because of the jobs that it would
	create, but it would not benefit my constituency if it happened in Radlett. I hope sincerely that the “minded to grant” decision is suddenly reversed to match the original three refusals, because those refusals were sensible. Two of them came under the previous Government, so I hope that Labour Members would approve of them as well. The harm that will be done by that development certainly does not justify its going ahead, especially where an authority slightly further up the road would like to have such development, very much as the hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) said his area would.
	We should encourage development to go where communities would welcome it, and where it fits in with our with our bigger, broader strategic plan for the economy of this country.

Andy Sawford: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to speak in this important debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) on bringing forward this debate on what the Opposition know to be an incredibly important and urgent issue.
	I disagree fundamentally with the hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) when she says that we need to go slowly in bringing forward infrastructure in this country. Given the desperate state of our economy and the number of people who are desperately looking for work, we need a great deal of urgency from the Government, particularly given their appalling record over the past two and a half years.
	It was interesting that the Financial Secretary chose to speak mainly about policies from the past. Most of his speech was actually about the last century. Some of the people who are now suffering, such as those who want school places in my constituency while the Government are failing to bring forward infrastructure investment, were not even born at the time of the decisions that he talked about.
	The Financial Secretary took on the former Deputy Prime Minister, John Prescott, in particular. I was at the opening of the new St Pancras station when John Prescott was praised by Lord Heseltine for his fantastic contribution to ensuring that the channel tunnel rail link went ahead and that that fantastic building was saved for the nation. The many people who arrived at that station ahead of the Olympics saw what we can do in this country when we commit ourselves to major infrastructure projects. I agree with the CBI and the many other people, including some of the economists who previously endorsed this Government’s plans, who say that this Government lack the political will to take forward major infrastructure projects.
	When people get on the train at St Pancras, which John Prescott and the last Labour Government did so much to make possible, they can now come to Corby and see the new railway station that has been built there. If the Minister tells any one of the commuters or the people who use that line for leisure day in and day out that the last Labour Government did not do enough to improve rail services in my constituency, they will laugh him out of town on the next train.
	We want to do more and to go further. We want to have northbound routes on that railway line. The other week, the Government made an announcement that
	was typical of their infrastructure announcements. They said that they were going to electrify the midland main line with £1 billion of expenditure. However, the figure was exactly the same as the amount of money they disastrously took out of the plans for infrastructure spending to which the previous Government had committed in this Parliament. They give us jam tomorrow.
	Earlier, the Economic Secretary whispered to the Financial Secretary about the improvement to the A43 in my constituency. Ministers talk about that proudly, but nobody was fooled when that announcement was made—it was just weeks before a by-election. I was surprised there was no announcement today of an Eastleigh bypass or orbital route, a south coast Hampshire link road or some other such potential bribe. Perhaps the coalition parties cannot agree on what appropriate bribe to give.
	Labour can give hope to the people of Eastleigh because we have a plan—a five-point plan for jobs and growth. We have talked—[Interruption.] You can laugh.

Nigel Evans: Order. I think the hon. Gentleman meant to say, “The Financial Secretary can laugh.”

Andy Sawford: Some young people from my constituency were here yesterday to learn about parliamentary etiquette —I should have taken more tips, Mr Deputy Speaker. If the Financial Secretary had laughed in front of those young people when I talked about the desperate need to invest in jobs and growth in this country, they would have given him very little credit indeed.
	There is a fanciful picture of how the Labour Government did not invest in infrastructure, but hon. Members should come to Corby and east Northamptonshire and drive past the schools that were built there, such as the brand new Kingswood school, which is a fantastic facility. My nieces get a fantastic education at the Corby business academy—[Interruption.] The Economic Secretary says that we will pay for those projects, but a combination of funding from the public and private sector—[Interruption.] He should listen to bodies such as the Monetary Policy Committee, which says that we need to find ways of investing in infrastructure in this country.

Gordon Birtwistle: rose—

Helen Goodman: Is the hon. Gentleman going to tell us about Eastleigh?

Gordon Birtwistle: No, I am not going to mention Eastleigh at all. Hon. Members are interested in the hon. Gentleman’s point on PFI—[Interruption.] No, he was talking about new colleges. Will he tell us when those massive infrastructure deals will be paid for? Will my grandchildren be paying for them?

Andy Sawford: The overwhelming majority of the investment in new children’s centres, schools and health improvement projects in my constituency was publicly funded. Government Members should remember that PFI was dreamt up by a previous Conservative Government, and that they did not oppose a single new school, children’s centre or hospital built by the Labour Government. If they were honest, they would have
	objected to them being built in the first place—or say they would close them down now. Let us have honesty on that.

Bill Esterson: My hon. Friend is right on the benefits of the new schools and children’s centres. A group of sixth-formers from Deyes high school were at an education event in the Palace earlier today. Their school building was due to be replaced under Building Schools for the Future, but they will not see it, and neither—more importantly—will their brothers and sisters. However, it would have been replaced under a Labour Government. I am sure that my hon. Friend agrees that that is the disgrace in what the current Government have done. They have cancelled the future in schools for many of our young people.

Andy Sawford: I absolutely agree. The planned rebuilding of Lodge Park school in my constituency under Building Schools for the Future was cancelled—one of the Government’s first acts. The Secretary of State for Education later apologised for his bungling and mishandling of that, but his apology means nothing to the young people whose education is suffering, or to the construction workers who otherwise would have had employment in my town. It is all part of the story of the past two years. This Government’s policies took Britain back into recession—one of only two G20 countries to go back into recession. The very people who counselled that Britain needed a plan to reduce its deficit over time—the previous Government set out a reasonable, sensible plan—are now telling the Government that they got it wrong and reduced the deficit too quickly, and that the plan has been hugely damaging to our economy. The Government’s economic arguments present a false divide between the public and private sectors. The public sector and the private sector are intimately interconnected in my constituency, as in any other. The Government create a false divide between the role of Government and Government spending and prospects for growth.
	Corby and east Northamptonshire has a new railway station and new schools, and the new Tresham college building is a fantastic facility for young people. That investment helps companies such as AGI Amaray, which makes all the DVD boxes we have in our homes. It helps companies such as Tata Steel to recruit people with the skills they need. It helps innovative new start-ups such as KwikScreen—some people from that company were in Parliament yesterday and I visited them a few weeks ago—which is now selling all over the world. It helps them because we are investing in the young people they need to compete in the world. The Corby east midlands international swimming pool is an incredible investment of which the whole country can proud. The Leader of the Opposition went there with me to meet visiting international swimmers and to wonder at the facility. It is impressive to people looking to invest in the town and provides a wide range of facilities for local people, including ways of keeping them healthy, and we need a healthy population for the work force of the future.
	All the good that Labour did for Corby contrasts with what is happening now. It is reasonable to contrast Government records, and important to do so when looking ahead. The slow-down in the market has had huge consequences for my community. We have one of the fastest growing populations in the country—it is set
	to double in the next 20 years. Little Stanion is a new development that, because the bottom dropped out of the housing market and the construction sector, has not yet reached the trigger point for the infrastructure it needs. I have talked to local people. They do not have the parks, play areas, public transport provision or the investment in schools and other facilities that they need. We need to get the economy growing. That is why, in my by-election, many people came out to vote for me on a cold, dark November evening. They voted because I made a pledge to support a jobs guarantee for young people, funded by a one-year national insurance tax break for small firms—I do not why the Government will not listen to that idea.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West is absolutely right to press the Government for action to get young people back to work. There are specific projects in east Northamptonshire and Corby, such as the Chowns Mill roundabout, investment in the A45, the Rockingham northern orbital route, getting the Geddington road reopened again and broadband. The previous Government promised 2 megabit broadband for every household in my constituency by 2012, but those plans were cancelled. We are now hoping that that might happen by 2015, but it is all part of a picture for my constituents of jam tomorrow—the investment was removed just when it was most needed. The Government really should listen.

James Morris: Unusually, I would like to start by thanking the Leader of the Opposition for choosing the subject of this debate, even if the text of his motion is fundamentally flawed. In the language of “Yes Minister”, it is extremely courageous of the Opposition to choose a debate on a subject on which their own record is so weak, particularly when they would have cut investment by 50% had they won the last election. I agree with the Leader of the Opposition that investment in infrastructure is vital to the economy’s long-term prosperity. It is also vital that we take effective action today to address the infrastructure deficit left by the previous Government.
	There is no question that poor infrastructure discourages inward investment. As Professor Dieter Helm wrote towards the end of the last Labour Government in 2009:
	“Few would choose to locate in Britain because of its infrastructure”.
	He went on to describe it as
	“not fit for the digital age”.
	Bringing our infrastructure up to a standard that businesses and residents should be able to expect is essential if we are to create the flexible and successful economy on which prosperity will depend.
	One of the most damaging legacies the Government inherited was the unsustainable imbalance in the economy that had built up over previous decades. We cannot build the prosperity we need based on London and the south-east alone and we cannot unlock the potential of the whole country without the modern infrastructure that makes doing business across the country and around the world as straightforward as it can be.
	The prosperity gap between the black country, part of which I represent, and the south-east grew out of
	control under the previous Government. Gross value added per head in Dudley and Sandwell fell from 88% of the national average in 1997 to just 74% in 2008. World-class transport infrastructure such as the HS2 scheme will play an important role in closing that gap. We need to make it as easy to do business with Frankfurt, New York and vital emerging markets from our regional cities as it is from the City of London.
	Labour left a rail system rapidly approaching capacity. Network Rail forecast that the west coast main line would be completely full by 2004. The inter-city rail network would be unable to cope without the additional capacity that will provided by HS2, and I am proud that the Government are taking the bold steps necessary to take that scheme forward. Businesses thinking of locating in my constituency know that they will have regular connecting services from the three main line stations in my constituency to the HS2 terminal in Birmingham, offering fast routes to London and later to Manchester, Leeds, Edinburgh and Glasgow.
	I would like to make one representation to the Minister. That investment, which is so important to bringing our largest cities together, must be complemented by a new focus on the importance of our regional airports. Whatever the rights and wrongs over the debate about expanding Heathrow, there can be no doubting the benefits of making better use of existing and potential capacity at airports outside London. Building a second runway at Birmingham airport, for example, would increase spare capacity to 50 million passengers per year, creating or sustaining 50,000 jobs. Transforming Birmingham, Manchester and other regional airports into additional hub airports would transform our regional economies and relieve some of the pressure on Heathrow.

Jim Shannon: Does the hon. Gentleman think that we also need to increase the turnover and capacity of regional airports in Scotland and Northern Ireland, particularly Aldergrove, Belfast city and Londonderry airports, in order to strengthen the economy across the whole of the UK?

James Morris: The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. We need to encourage greater use of capacity for all our regional airports, as part of the vital effort to rebalance the British economy in the way I described.
	Transport infrastructure is not only vital to business, but essential to people’s everyday lives. As the Minister said, the previous Government explicitly set out to price people out of their cars in order to reduce demand for investment in road infrastructure. Instead, we need to look at how we can make our roads better. My constituents are pleased that the Government are investing more in local roads through the highways maintenance block grant to councils. Unfortunately, Labour’s record in local government highlights the hypocrisy of the Opposition’s motion. People in Dudley borough have benefited from £2 million of additional investment in local road maintenance. Unfortunately, the new Labour administration is cutting the road maintenance budget by the same amount, pound for pound, as the additional funding from the Department for Transport. Labour in local government has shown time and again that, as far as it is concerned, infrastructure spending is a very low priority, but residents know that we cannot build a strong local economy with third-rate local infrastructure.

Steve Reed: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman understands that some of the cuts that local government is delivering might well be the result of the 50% cash reduction that most authorities are experiencing over the comprehensive spending review period.

James Morris: The hon. Gentleman knows that the decisions taken by local authorities are about priorities. I was giving an example from Dudley borough of a specific decision about priorities for local funding which will be greatly detrimental to local residents.
	I welcome this Government’s commitment to effective and efficient investment in vital infrastructure at a time when finances are constrained by the need to tackle the record deficits built up by their predecessors. Using Government guarantees to leverage private investment is a prudent use of public funds, whereas overuse of PFI has left taxpayers paying over the odds for capital schemes, as has been described in this debate.
	The Chancellor’s announcement of the new PF2 scheme in the autumn statement was badly needed. We must restore people’s confidence that public money allocated for infrastructure is being spent on roads, schools and hospitals, rather than on swelling contractors’ profits. My constituents were particularly pleased that the proposed new Midland Metropolitan hospital in Sandwell was cited as the first candidate for the new scheme in the NHS. The local hospitals trust has been working hard with the Department of Health and the Treasury to ensure that those plans progress. I hope that my constituents can look forward to further good news shortly. Such investment would not only undoubtedly stimulate local economic activity in the short term, but provide a valuable new facility, providing better services more efficiently for years to come.
	I believe that the Government are taking the necessary and tough decisions to invest for the long term in Britain’s infrastructure in order to make up the gap and the deficit left by the previous Government.

Nick Raynsford: I draw attention at the outset to my interests as declared in the register.
	This has been a curious debate to date. Infrastructure is, at least in theory, a subject on which there is a large measure of cross-party support. There is general agreement across the House that we need to ensure that we have the transport networks, power arrangements, waste and water distribution systems, sewerage systems, flood protection systems and all the other necessary infrastructure that is essential to a modern, functioning economy. Really, we should have been debating how to make a reality of the current investment programmes to deliver the kind of infrastructure that is essential to our economic well-being in the longer term and, in the short term, that will help to create jobs, employment and growth in our stuttering economy.
	However, we did not do that. Instead, we have seen a series of differences—not just across the House, between the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) on our Front Bench, but between the Minister and his Back-Bench colleague, the hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main), who took a very
	different view from him. Rather than echoing his stated wish that infrastructure investment should be speeded up, she made a fairly passionate case for slowing it down.

Anne Main: The right hon. Gentleman will see clearly that I talked about the strategic rail freight interchange in my constituency. More to the point, I am sure he would agree that these issues—whether waste disposal or otherwise—cause tensions in communities and that harm to the environment has to be weighed in the balance against development.

Nick Raynsford: I put it to the hon. Lady that when she reads Hansard tomorrow, she will see some pretty clear references to going slowly and not following the advice of her Front-Bench colleague, who wants to accelerate development. He has not been very successful in doing that, but at least his heart is in the right place, and I am with him on that.
	The Minister chose to present a case that was, frankly, absurdly partisan—perhaps to divert attention away from his difficulties with his own party, which does not always share his enthusiasm for speeding up the development of infrastructure. The implication that there was no worthwhile infrastructure investment under the previous Government and that the arrival of the current Government has unleashed a cornucopia of new infrastructure schemes is, frankly, risible.
	Let us look at the record. I tried in my intervention to point out to the Minister that it was completely unfair to say that there had be no worthwhile investment, particularly in rail, under the previous Government. Let us look at the history of High Speed 1, the link between the channel tunnel and London. That link was not constructed when the channel tunnel was built, because the then Government, headed by Baroness Thatcher, did not believe in rail investment. The French did, and there was a high-speed link between the tunnel and Paris. The Belgians did, and there was a high-speed link between the tunnel and Brussels. But there was no high-speed link between the tunnel and London because the then Conservative Government did not believe in it. Eventually, the Major Government had a last-minute change of heart and began to recognise the importance of such a link, but they could not get it together and the scheme was in a state of financial uncertainty when the Labour Government came into power. The Minister is a fair-minded man, and I hope that he will recognise that High Speed 1, an important piece of infrastructure investment, was the achievement of the last Labour Government.
	I would also like to remind the Minister about Crossrail. The scheme had been talked about for a very long time, since the mists of antiquity, but it was the Major Government who introduced a Bill to enable it to be built. However, rather characteristically of them, their political management in this place was so poor that they entrusted the project to a hybrid Bill Committee, which rejected it. So the Bill never progressed, the infrastructure was not built and, once again, it was left to the Labour Government to introduce the Crossrail scheme, to take the Bill through Parliament and to begin the work.
	I give credit to the current Government, because they have sustained the investment in the Crossrail scheme. I am glad that they have done so, but it is risible to argue
	that everything being done today is wonderful and that nothing good was done before. As the Minister must recognise, the Crossrail scheme was developed by the previous Government and is being carried forward by the current Government. Making a reality of such long-term investment schemes depends on that degree of cross-party consensus.

Greg Clark: The right hon. Gentleman will recall that I made no criticism of Labour in that regard. In fact, I said that these were long-term decisions, and that the proposals that he has mentioned enjoyed cross- party support. My particular criticism of the previous Government was the decision of the Minister for whom he worked, now Lord Prescott, to cancel 103 out of 140 road schemes. In the spirit of bipartisanship, will he now reflect on that point and accept that that was the wrong thing to do?

Nick Raynsford: Perhaps the Minister will reflect on the point ably made by my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Andy Sawford) about Lord Prescott’s part in the creation of High Speed 1 and the praise that was given to him by Michael Heseltine, whom I am sure the Minister would accept as a colleague.

Greg Clark: rose—

Nick Raynsford: Unlike the Minister, my speech is time-limited, and I have now given way twice. I cannot do so again, so I hope he will bear with me.
	I want to take the Minister to task once more—I might give way to him again at that point, as this is a new subject—over the national infrastructure plan. The Government’s amendment to the motion is based on the absurd proposition that the national infrastructure plan is entirely the product of the current Government and that no such plan existed under the previous Government. He will know very well that Infrastructure UK was set up by the previous Government, and that all the preparatory work for the national infrastructure plan was done under that Government. That is why his Government were able to publish the national infrastructure plan in October 2010. If he thinks about it, he will realise that it would have been completely impossible to put together and publish the plan within four months or so of his party coming into government.
	The national infrastructure plan was a bipartisan achievement, and I hope that we can continue this debate in a more mature spirit, and recognise that cross-party agreement is essential if we are to get the real infrastructure investment that we need and if we are to do this properly without the kind of problems that we have encountered too often in the past as a result of the failings of all Governments of all complexions.
	I should also like to focus on the ambivalence that exists in relation to whether housing constitutes infrastructure. The national infrastructure plan does not define housing as infrastructure, but the Government have made provision in their Infrastructure (Financial Assistance) Act 2012 for £10 billion of support for investment in housing schemes. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s view on whether infrastructure should be defined so as to embrace housing and, if so, how quickly he thinks housing might benefit from that Act.
	Last summer, Lord Sassoon, who was then the responsible Minister, talked about £40 billion-worth of schemes that were shovel ready—all ready to go—in the autumn. We are now well past the autumn and to the best of my knowledge not a single housing scheme has been given the go-ahead. Indeed, we have got to the point only of defining the criteria by which schemes may be assessed. This does not look like speedy progress. I would welcome some clarity from the Minister on when he expects that financial support mechanism to have any impact in the housing sector, which is facing a terrible problem of undersupply.
	I personally believe that it is impossible to consider infrastructure without including housing, because accommodation is needed for people just as much they need the roads or rail for access, the power supply and all the other things essential for economic development. I would therefore include provision for housing within infrastructure development. I would do so particularly at the moment because the output of housing is appalling. In the last 12 months, only 98,000 housing starts were made. I put it to the Minister, who was critical of the previous Government’s failure in this respect, that if he goes back to 2007—the last year before the recession hit—we started 185,000 homes. If his Government get anywhere near the level of output of the previous Government, they will be doing very well. They are not there at the moment; they need to go very much further and rather faster than they have. I hope they will think about how this scheme can be used to stimulate housing development.
	The one other area I want to touch on is aviation. The Minister was interestingly coy about aviation. We know perfectly well—we are constantly reminded of it, not least by the Mayor of London, who I believe is of the same party as the right hon. Gentleman—that there is a chronic problem of undercapacity for aviation in London and the south-east, and an urgent need for new investment. There are and will be differences about where we believe this increase in capacity should be located. I believe that the Thames estuary is the right location and I have advocated that for a long time—I am with the Mayor on that. Other people believe that Heathrow should be expanded, while others believe Stansted is the right location. But no one who has looked at this seriously believes that we do not need to expand capacity. What have the Government done? Kicked it into touch until after the next general election. That is simply not an adequate response. I put it to the Minister that the Government will have to be more serious and should approach this issue on a more cross-party basis if we really are to get progress in infrastructure investment, which is essential to us.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. I am sorry, but in order to accommodate remaining colleagues, it is necessary to reduce the time limit on Back-Bench speeches to six minutes with immediate effect. Apologies, but that has to be done.

Mark Reckless: Given the new time limit and the scope of the Government’s activities in the infrastructure field, I shall limit my remarks to the rail sector.
	It is pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford). I must say, however, that the second most absurd comment in his speech—after the one about the Thames estuary airport—was when he invited the Minister to recognise that HS1 was the achievement of the last Labour Government. I thought he was about to make an appeal by saying that infrastructure was a long-term thing and that both parties had been involved in it, but no. Perhaps even more striking was the comment of the hon. Member for Corby (Andy Sawford), when he said that we had Lord Prescott to thank for the preservation of the wonderful façade of St Pancras station. That might have been news to the late Sir John Betjeman.
	HS1 certainly has better branding than the channel tunnel rail link, and I congratulate Labour Members on that, but the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Act was passed in 1996, and it included outline planning permission. The then Government decided as part of that to have the station at Ebbsfleet, and very serious redevelopment in north Kent flowed from that. HS1 cuts through my constituency and there was significant opposition to it at the time. To a degree, the community’s view of it has settled down; certainly the noise and interference from those trains has not been as great as I feared. We have very significant benefits from having Ebbsfleet, and the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich should recognise the cross-party impetus that was behind HS1.
	As for HS2, Opposition Members have spoken of it as it were just some little add-on. We have heard that great things are being done in Brazil; some project worth about £5 billion has been mentioned. However, the scope, scale and ambition of the HS2 project, and the vision shown by the Chancellor in driving forward that project from his time in opposition until now—despite the state of the public finances that we were left—are hugely impressive. That £35 billion project is basically inventing a high-speed rail network for this country.
	Opposition Members complain that trains will not stop in certain places or will not go to others, but the fact is that even places that will not be on the new line and will not be given new stations will gain significant benefits from HS2. I am thinking particularly of the link that will go all the way to Wigan, the link that will go almost as far as York, and the link that will allow trains to come on from Crewe. All those will provide huge benefits for Newcastle, Liverpool and Scotland, which, as with cities actually on the network, will see substantial reductions in travel times. The Government deserve to be given a measure of credit by Opposition Members for pushing ahead with HS2, particularly given the finances with which we were left.
	I am happy to give credit to the Opposition when it comes to Crossrail, and I was pleased to hear the right hon. Gentleman give credit to us for keeping it. I think that particular credit is due to us in view of the financial circumstances in which we have proceeded with Crossrail. If he will do me the courtesy of allowing me to visit his constituency on 27 February, I look forward to seeing the handover of the Woolwich station box to Crossrail. Berkeley has done an excellent job, and it will be a real gain for his area and for south-east London in general. I am an Eltham boy of old myself. I also think that there will be huge benefits for north Kent. Crossrail will
	go through Woolwich to Abbey Wood, and the connections with Dartford, Gravesend and the Medway towns will be much improved.
	A Crossrail spur from Stratford to Stansted could serve as a tribute to, and be a legacy of, the current Government. We are seeking to have infrastructure projects that can be proceeded with quickly. The Davies commission is due to report in 2015, but an interim report is expected this year, which will consider how existing runway capacity in the south-east can be better used. The single best answer to that must be Stansted, because it has one runway which is only half used. It has the capacity for a further 18 million passenger movements per year, but it does not have good links with central London. If we had the Crossrail spur, it would.
	The former aviation Minister Steve Norris is doing fantastic work in promoting that idea. He proposes a six-mile tunnel from Stratford to Fairlop Waters, and for the railway to run along the M11 all the way to Stansted. As a result, the journey from Stansted to Liverpool Street would take only 23 minutes, and it would take only half an hour to travel to the west end or to Ebbsfleet. What a legacy for the Government that would be! What better way could we find of kick-starting the construction industry? I would expect the Liberal Democrats to support it: they may not want any new runways ever to be built in the south-east, but at least they believe in improved rail connections, and they are working with the Conservatives to deliver that.
	I hope that Treasury Ministers will allow Steve Norris, and perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) and me, to put the case to them. I think that it would be more than a short-term—perhaps a longer-term—solution to the aviation issue.

Anne Main: My hon. Friend is advancing a powerful argument for the joined-up thinking that I stressed in my speech. I hope that he continues with it, because the more we can marry areas that want development with the benefits that result from it, the better the position will be for all concerned.

Mark Reckless: I think that the Stansted Crossrail spur could provide an answer to that, from not just a local but a regional and a national perspective.
	I was sorry to learn that my hon. Friend, for whom I have great respect, was encountering a difficulty in regard to the freight terminal that is planned for the lovely area of Radlett. In my constituency, the infrastructure is being put where we want it. Only last month, the Government announced that we were to be given a brand new railway station in Rochester, which will be built exactly where we want regeneration to happen, in the area around Rochester Riverside. It will hugely assist us in making the case to developers, and in encouraging people to visit and to move to Rochester. It will improve the transport times to London, it will be immediately open to the whole of Rochester high street, and it will link the high street with the regeneration area. This Government have worked very closely with Medway council, through Network Rail, to get this announcement and to get these funds, for which I am very grateful.

Anne Main: That is exactly the point I was making about Sundon quarry. That area wants the regeneration, while St Albans, thankfully, does not need it. I believe that these projects should take place where they are needed.

Mark Reckless: I agree. I am a localist in these matters. I had the privilege to serve under the Financial Secretary when he ran the Conservative party’s policy unit, and he probably did more than any single person in our party to push that localist agenda. What he has achieved in planning, and in getting agreement for a planning system that boosts the economy and regeneration in this country yet allows local needs to be reflected and gives proper powers to the local democratically elected councillors, has been exemplary. The more we can work to get the economy moving through investment in infrastructure where both communities and the nation want it, the better.
	I ask the Financial Secretary to take this agenda forward and to look in particular at giving a further boost to the economy with an extension of Crossrail. I urge him to ensure that the Treasury, as well as the Department for Transport, looks at the case that has been made for a Crossrail spur from Stratford to Stansted.

Steve Reed: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) on securing this debate on this important issue. I want to draw the House’s attention to the Croydon tram extension—or, rather, the lack of it. That project has huge local support. It was also supported by the Mayor of London; in his re-election campaign, he came to the area twice and was photographed on the proposed tram route. I greatly regret that the scheme is now not proposed for delivery, the cause of which is an unhappy combination of a Tory Mayor of London and a Tory-led Government abandoning a major infrastructure project that had huge regenerative potential for areas including Upper Norwood and Crystal Palace in my constituency. The constituency has extremely high, and growing, youth unemployment. That was a huge issue in the by-election at which I was elected. I would very much like all parties concerned to think again about recommitting to the promise that the Mayor of London made in his re-election campaign.
	Before I was elected at the end of November, one of the roles I had was chair of the Vauxhall Nine Elms strategy board. That is a fantastic project just across the river from here. It is led by local government, which the Government frequently take pleasure in denigrating and decrying. It was led by the Labour administration in Lambeth and the Conservative administration in Wandsworth, acting together with private sector partners to create a regeneration project that is bigger than the Olympics in the heart of London. It will be the single biggest generator of new homes in the entire country, delivering about 16,000 new homes and creating about 20,000 new jobs, as well as the Northern line extension.
	I am surprised by how frequently we hear the Government taking credit for that scheme. Indeed, the Chancellor did so in both of the last two autumn statements. There is no Government money of any note going into this scheme, however. It is not a Government project—although I give them credit for underwriting
	it—and all the parties involved would be pleased if they would stop trying to take credit for something they are not doing.
	Although the Government are pleased to talk up that excellent and vital infrastructure project, their planning reform proposals will slow it down. A number of schemes with permissions in place are ready to go, but the Government have now told the developers that if they delay implementation, they may be able to reduce or remove some of the social housing requirements. Therefore, as a result of Government intervention, we are looking at fewer affordable homes at a time of record homelessness, and the delay of planned jobs at a time of record unemployment, none of which makes sense.
	As a Member of this House I am also privileged to be a member of the Public Administration Committee, which is currently conducting an inquiry into Government procurement. While taking evidence, the Committee has repeatedly been told that the lack of a long-term Government procurement pipeline for national infrastructure means that businesses are not confident, cannot plan for growth and jobs, and therefore do not invest. As a result, yes, there are more jobs—low-paid and part-time jobs—but there is no growth, and when there are more jobs but no growth there is a collapse in productivity. The confidence of business has been broken by the failure of the Government to invest, and that can only be a harbinger of further trouble for our economy.
	The Government failure to invest in infrastructure is one of the key causes of their failure on jobs, growth and the economy. The Deputy Prime Minister is right to admit that the Government have got it wrong. The country needs them to change course and I commend Labour’s five-point plan as an excellent starting point.

Bill Esterson: I commend the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North (Steve Reed) about the unwillingness of business to invest, and the effect on jobs and growth of our lack of confidence in the economic prospects of the country, which is caused by the Government’s economic policy. That point summarised the problems and set out why this debate is crucial and why it is crucial that the Government get infrastructure investment right.
	When the coalition Government were elected, one of their first acts was to cancel a number of infrastructure projects, including the Building Schools for the Future programme. Chesterfield high school in my constituency was one victim of that decision and did not receive the investment in new buildings it so badly needed. The decision also meant the end of plans for Chesterfield high school to be integrated with Crosby high school. Crosby high school is a special school, and students and staff at both schools would have benefited from the integration of special and mainstream education on the same site. Sadly, that was not to be, and hon. Members across the country will have similar examples of the impact of the cancellation of Building Schools for the Future.
	When they took power the Government scrapped a number of infrastructure schemes and reviewed a number of schemes that the previous Government had already approved. On infrastructure spending, it is clear that the Government have cut investment by £12.8 billion
	compared with the plans of the previous Government. The Treasury identifies 574 projects worth £310 billion in the Government’s 2012 infrastructure pipeline, but just seven of those are completed or operational and they include a road scheme started under the Labour Government.
	In my area, the Mersey Gateway has been described by KPMG as one of the world’s most important infrastructure projects, yet as we heard from the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), a preferred bidder has yet to be announced for that important scheme. In my constituency, the previous Labour Government gave the go-ahead for the Switch Island to Thornton relief road. That road was put on hold in May 2010 by the incoming coalition Government but reinstated after a review.
	Sefton council spent considerable time and money negotiating first with the Government and then with various landowners. The road has widespread local support, as it will relieve congestion for the residents of Thornton and speed up journeys for people from Formby, Crosby, Maghull and Aintree in my constituency. It will help the economy and boost jobs and growth. It has been discussed for at least 40 years, and the news that it was to go ahead was welcomed by nearly all my constituents. There has been a marked absence of opposition to the road, partly because the consultation carried out by Sefton council was so thorough. Nevertheless, the Secretary of State decided to call in the project and hold a public inquiry.
	At the cost of an inquiry, the Government have delayed a much needed piece of infrastructure, and three years later there is still no sign of building work. I am sure colleagues will know the cost of such inquiries, and the final cost of the Thornton relief road inquiry will be of great interest to my constituents. I dare say that Members across the House will know of schemes that have suffered similar delays because of how we deal with infrastructure in this country. The slow progress made on the Thornton relief road and the complete lack of progress on most of the projects in the infrastructure pipeline—the Treasury’s words, not mine—highlight an institutional delay that happens in this country and a real problem that we have on infrastructure.
	Some Members have talked about consensus, and that issue must be addressed across the House, but the lack of progress, the delay in starting work and the decline in the construction industry show a much bigger problem, which lies at the heart of the economic problems in this country. The Thornton relief road is important for the economic benefits it will bring once it is built, but it is also vital because of the impact of construction on the local economy, on jobs and on the multiplier effect of infrastructure spending on the wider economy.
	The lack of activity in the construction industry is a key reason why our economy has stalled since May 2010, and the fact that the construction sector has declined so much is a cause for great long-term concern, as well as concern about its short-term impact. Output in the construction industry fell by 9.3% between the end of 2011 and the end of 2012, and 129,000 jobs have been lost in construction since the Tories and Lib Dems joined forces nearly three years ago. The delay in infrastructure planning and the impact on the construction industry, on jobs and on the economy will have a
	long-term effect. The firms that have closed cannot just reopen, and workers who have been laid off cannot simply be re-employed. For projects such as the Thornton relief road, delay means that potential economic benefit is not realised when it is most needed, which is now.
	The Government state that they want to speed up the planning process to drive economic development, yet they hold unnecessary and expensive planning inquiries, which only delay the start of projects. To listen to the Minister, one might have thought that the whole country had been turned into one big building site—how far from the truth can that be? His description of large-scale, widespread projects in road, rail and energy might have led us to believe that we have a thriving, growing economy, where the construction sector is booming. Sadly, that is just not the case. Even the Government’s own figures show what is really happening.
	The case for infrastructure has been made by the CBI and the British Chambers of Commerce. Unless we see those investments, we will not see the return to growth and prosperity, and the jobs that are so desperately needed. The Government need to take action now.

Helen Goodman: I found the Minister’s description of the recent history of this country totally astonishing. In my constituency, I can think immediately of a new bypass, a new further education college, a new hospital, several GP surgeries, several new schools and thousands of people who benefited from the decent homes programme under the last Labour Government. I am very concerned that this Government are not investing in the north-east as they should be. In the autumn statement of 2011, only 0.03% of the £40 billion that the Chancellor of the Exchequer switched into capital spending came to the north-east. In the autumn statement of 2012, there was an injection of £124 million, a road-widening scheme in Gateshead and some housing, which takes our share of the Government’s capital spend to an incredible 0.5%. That is an appalling waste of opportunity and potential in the north-east.
	I am sorry that the Minister who opened the debate is not in his place, and I urge the Treasury to examine what the report from the Institute for Public Policy Research says about the way in which calculations for cost-benefit analysis on roads are made. The report makes it very clear that there is no level playing field between how cost-benefit analysis is carried out in sparse areas and how it is done in densely populated areas. I hope that the Treasury revisits that.
	I also hope that the Treasury will examine the report from the North East chamber of commerce, which makes it clear that we have a large number of projects that would significantly improve the operation of the north-east economy. That is important, because we face the highest level of unemployment in the entire country at 9.1%. That is the short-term problem that the Government have pushed us into.
	The long-term problem set out by Oxford Economics, which did some special simulations for us, is that in the 10 years from 2010, we will see a deficit of 20,000 jobs in our region. That is 20,000 lives wasted because this Government are not making intelligent decisions about investment. This Government’s infrastructure decisions are driven almost entirely by political considerations rather than economic considerations.
	The Chancellor’s unstable approach to energy policy is such that we do not have a framework to enable investment in offshore wind and renewables. Those are of value in themselves and offer a significant opportunity for the north-east economy.
	Another area where the Government are ignoring this country’s potential is connectedness. Since 2005, more than 7 million UK households have gone online. The explosion in internet use has had significant economic benefits: in 2010, the internet economy made up 8.3% of this country’s GDP—a higher proportion than in any country in the world. Underpinning that is the roll-out of Britain’s broadband infrastructure, but what this Government have done has almost halted the roll-out of broadband in England. The Labour Government had a plan to ensure that by 2012, 90% of the country would have access to at least a good speed of broadband, but this Government put the achievement of the target back to 2015, and last week we heard from British Telecom that it is unlikely to be achieved until 2017. That is five lost years from this Government.
	We need solutions that allow the benefits of broadband to be spread as widely as possible, but what the Government are doing by failing to invest in broadband disadvantages rural communities in particular. That is extraordinary in view of the fact that both coalition parties claim to represent the countryside; neither is doing so effectively. By breaking up the large areas on which we were letting the contracts for broadband and instead adopting a policy of fragmentation by local authority area, this Government made it uneconomic for many providers to bid for the contracts; consequently, they have produced a market in which there is almost no competition. Clearly the slogan is, “Vote Tory, vote against competition.” That is not the way to develop our economy. It is really important that we move forward and have one digital nation.

David Lammy: I am grateful for the opportunity to talk about infrastructure in our capital city, London. The capital is about to be hit by a demographic time bomb, which seems to have taken both the Government and City hall by surprise. The Mayor’s London plan forecast that the capital’s population would be 8.5 million by 2027, but we know that that is likely to be exceeded in 2016 or earlier, and by 2031, there will be 9.5 million people living here in London. Today’s creaking infrastructure will be burdened by 1.5 million extra people.
	The House has already heard the depressing detail of the housing shortage here in London, with young couples unable to save for a deposit, families of six being squashed into flats built for three, and young professionals being extorted out of more rent by their landlord and more fees by their letting agent. Less has been said about London’s transport network, which is already at breaking point and is set to be pushed over the edge. We now require the sort of vision that gave us London underground 150 years ago.
	Right hon. and hon. Members will already know about the scrum to get on the tube at rush hour. How much worse will that become over the next decade,
	in which an additional 700,000 jobs will be located in central London? How much more congested will it be when High Speed 2 ferries even more passengers into central London terminals at peak times? For that privilege, Londoners are paying the highest transport fares in the world.
	Yet these are problems that some Londoners are envious of, because parts of our capital remain islands of isolation. Even in 2013 some of my constituents are served by only one train an hour and at weekends none at all—here in our capital city, in one of the poorest wards, Northumberland Park, which has the highest unemployment, the highest levels of child poverty and the lowest levels of attainment in the country. Without transport links, such areas are starved of investment, bled of ambition and left marooned from the throbbing economic heart of the centre.
	Not only is London failing its commuters and entire swathes of its suburbs, but the very status of the capital as one of the world’s greatest cities is under threat. It is not difficult to comprehend why London has been so successful. London’s triumph over the centuries is that it has constantly been open to the world as a centre for trade and finance. Today London is a magnet for some of the brightest and most innovative talents from every corner of the globe. That opportunity is being rivalled by cities such as Frankfurt and New York, and the growth in India and China.
	How have the Government prepared London to meet the challenges of the next 20 years? They almost cancelled Crossrail 1. The Thameslink programme is beset by delays. They cancelled the third runway at Heathrow and kicked the search for an alternative into the long grass. They cancelled the four-tracking of the West Anglia line that would finally have provided a decent train service from one of the poorest neighbourhoods in the capital. The only ambition that this Government seem to have for the capital—the only vignette of a solution to the challenges it faces—is the two-station spur of the Northern line to Battersea power station. Small increases in capacity are set to be outstripped and overwhelmed by the forecast growth in the number of commuters. Now the Government look set to drop the ball once again, this time on Crossrail 2.
	The Chancellor and the Minister will have the seen the report published last week by Lord Adonis and the London First group that details the case for a new line linking the south-west of London with the north-east of London, including three stations in my constituency. As my noble Friend made clear, this is the only way that London will be able to cope with the challenges presented to it over the next 20 years; it is the only way that London will be able to handle the growing number of commuters; and it is the only way that passengers arriving in London from High Speed 2 can be efficiently dispersed from Euston station. It is the only way that we can relieve the dangerous levels of congestion on London’s major north-south tube lines—the Victoria, Piccadilly and Northern lines—the severe overcrowding that Londoners experience on mainline routes into Clapham junction and Waterloo, and the overcrowding across the tube.
	Most important are the economic benefits that the proposal would bring to some of the poorest neighbourhoods in our capital. For areas such as Northumberland Park in my constituency, Edmonton,
	Hackney and large parts of our capital city, we need these infrastructure projects. We need a renewed vision for transport in our city. We must have Crossrail 2, building on Crossrail 1. We need a commitment from the Minister that the Government will get on with that. We need a Bill before the next Parliament to introduce Crossrail 2 so that we can see the infrastructure here in the city, and the city can provide the economic boost to our country that is so desperately needed.

Sheila Gilmore: It is very important to realise that investment in infrastructure works in boosting the economy. I want to give an example from Scotland that is about investment in housing, and I will start, but not necessarily finish, by praising something that the current Scottish Government did. At the beginning of the UK Government’s term of office, they took a decision to bring forward capital spending in order to boost the economy. They put some of that spending into housing, particularly affordable housing. As a result, for a brief period, they were able to increase the proportion of spending on affordable housing.

John Healey: In the spirit of generosity to other parties, will my hon. Friend also commend the coalition Government for introducing the borrowing guarantees and earmarking £10 billion for housing, classifying it categorically as infrastructure for the first time? To make her point, I should say that every £1 million of public money that goes into house building generates 11 jobs.

Sheila Gilmore: My right hon. Friend makes an important point. The spending in Scotland enabled the Scottish Government to announce that unemployment was not rising as fast as in the rest of the UK, and they took great pleasure in that. Sadly, the situation has not been maintained, and we are hearing less of how wonderful the Scottish Government are at dealing with unemployment; at present, the opposite is happening. I would argue that one of the reasons is that the investment in infrastructure, particularly in housing, has not been sustained. The figures are stark. In Scotland, there were 7,915 new affordable housing starts in 2009-10; in 2010-11, the figure fell slightly to 6,460; and in 2011-12, it fell to 3,405—a halving in less than two years.
	There is a consequence for the construction industry, its employees and unemployment in Scotland. The Scottish Government showed that such investment worked, but they have not been able to sustain it. They would probably argue that that is solely because of what has been happening at the UK level—investment in housing and in capital has been falling. They would be right to some extent, although I would add that they are not particularly interested in showing that the situation can be overcome. I suggest two ways in which they could overcome it.
	First, the Scottish Government could use the tax-raising powers given in 1999 as part of devolution. They have not chosen to use those, although I think people in Scotland would be prepared for them to be used if they thought that the money could be invested as it was previously. They have also put a stranglehold on local government by having a five-year council tax freeze,
	which has meant that local government cannot make the choice to say to its local population, “We desperately need more housing. We will put up council tax so that we can borrow”—that is perfectly possible—“and build that much-needed housing.”
	So there are ways in which the Scottish Government could continue with policies that for a brief period showed that investment in infrastructure boosts the economy and employment. I urge them to go back to doing that, rather than allowing things to deteriorate so that they can always blame London; that, I am afraid, is what they tend to do.
	Some of the discussion is fascinating. If someone had fallen asleep in 1997 and woken up watching this debate, they would have wondered which party was talking. Government Members want to argue, “The last Government didn’t do anything on infrastructure and when they did, it was all this horrible PFI.” I seem to recall that PFI was not a Labour Government invention, but was enthusiastically put forward by the preceding Conservative Government. I am interested to know when that conversion happened. We can get that sort of investment better, but my city is a lot better for some of the public-private partnerships that we put in place—the schools that were built and the investment that was taking place.
	A lot of things seem to happen in Scotland first these days, which are then followed, not always for the better, here. In 2007 a Scottish Government of a nationalist persuasion took over, and in my city a Lib Dem-Scottish National party council took over. They both decided that they did not like public-private partnerships and so would instead come up with some magic way of creating these investments. As a result, not one new school was started in the five years of that Lib Dem-SNP administration—not one. Several were finished, and councillors were very pleased to go and open them and have their name put on the opening plaque, but those schools had been planned and funded through PPPs. We seem to have undergone a miraculous conversion at some point—I am not quite sure when—but we have not come with anything that really works in its place.
	I call in support of this argument none other than the Mayor of London, who is quoted in tonight’s edition of The Evening Standard as calling for a £1.3 billion investment in housing in London. Perhaps the Government would like to listen to a mayor of their own political persuasion.

Catherine McKinnell: This has been a good and thoughtful debate with Members on both sides of the House illustrating how important infrastructure projects are to their constituencies, to the wider region and to UK plc as a whole.
	I want to highlight some of the more memorable moments in the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) summed up the Minister’s opening speech as a dismal display of dither and delay; I hope that I have paraphrased him correctly. The hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) gave the Government’s position away by speaking up for dither and delay and cautioning against a mad dash for growth. One could not accuse the Government of that—it is more like a mad dash for the dip.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Andy Sawford) spoke my mind when he expressed deep concern about the Government’s very backward-looking approach on this issue. He also made a passionate plea for more infrastructure investment in his area. My right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford) spoke passionately about High Speed 1—a major achievement by Labour in government—and set out his concerns about the lack of housing investment by this Government.
	The hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) limited his comments to rail infrastructure. He claimed that that was because the Government’s infrastructure activities are too broad and varied, but I would argue that it is the only area they are taking any action on at all.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North (Steve Reed) raised the crucial issue of youth unemployment, which the Government, with their complacent approach, seem to overlook too often. My hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) recalled the cancellation of Building Schools for the Future—the decision made so rashly by the Government on taking office that has impacted not only on children but, as we now know, on economic growth.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) talked about the lack of investment in the north-east region, with 0.05% of Government investment being the north-east’s share to date and the Government’s decisions being driven by a political rather than an economic rationale. My right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) set out the desperate need for investment in London. He was seconded by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore), who cited the Mayor of London’s having called for much the same thing.
	The majority of Members on whom I have commented are Labour Members. That is because we called this debate to raise the fundamental role that infrastructure projects could and should be playing in getting our country and our economy on the road to recovery and growth. This is an economy that has been flatlining as a result of the Government’s failing plan, that did not grow at all in the whole of 2012 and that has now shrunk in four of the past five quarters.

Andy Sawford: This country’s growth rate since the 2010 comprehensive spending review is 0.4%. On infrastructure, does my hon. Friend agree that the huge contrast between us and America, Germany and other countries that are maintaining their stimulus is highlighted by the fact that they are now above their pre-crisis peak? They are now growing by 3% or 4%, compared with the abysmal record of this Government.

Catherine McKinnell: Indeed. My hon. Friend makes that point very well. Infrastructure investment fell off the cliff when this Government came into power and we are seeing the economic consequences of that today. Many Members have referred to the Chancellor’s 2010 spending review. It took place in the fourth quarter of 2010 and the UK’s economy has grown by just 0.4% since then. During that time, the USA economy has grown 4.2%, Germany’s by 3.6% and France’s by 1.5%.
	Our economy, however, has been stagnating for the past two years, and borrowing is now rising, not falling, as a result.

Geraint Davies: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Catherine McKinnell: I do not have much time left, but I will give way.

Geraint Davies: Does my hon. Friend agree that the United States strategy for the top 2% to pay more towards reflating the economy and getting 1% extra growth is a good idea and that we should not be hitting the poor to pay for debts?

Catherine McKinnell: This Government’s choices on spending and tax have resulted in millionaires being given a tax cut while the poorest bear the brunt. We are seeing the results of that, not just in the suffering that we see at our constituency surgeries, but in the lack of economic growth. That is why it is so disappointing—indeed, unforgiveable—that the coalition Government have been asleep at the wheel on the issue of infrastructure investment.

Andrew Bridgen: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Catherine McKinnell: I will give way one last time and then I must make some progress.

Andrew Bridgen: I thank the hon. Lady for giving way. Does she not recall that a pledge was slipped into and hidden away in the Labour manifesto to cut capital spending—that is, infrastructure spending—by 50% had her party formed the next Government?

Catherine McKinnell: That shows, once again, the Government’s utter complacency and head-in-the-sand approach to this whole issue. The hon. Gentleman knows that his Government have spent £12.8 billion less on capital investment than Labour planned, so I will not take lectures on that from any Government Member.
	Time and again over the past two years we have heard the Prime Minister and Chancellor expound the value of infrastructure investment in delivering growth in the economy and, crucially, creating new jobs. All the evidence shows, however, that their record is one of inaction, complacency, delay and failure to deliver, which, combined with private sector uncertainty, is having a highly damaging effect on Britain’s construction industry for one.
	The much-vaunted national infrastructure plan, published back in 2011, identified 40 priority projects that the Government stated were
	“of national significance and critical for growth”.
	However, despite the Government’s proclaimed focus on those so-called priority areas—and, indeed, a Cabinet Committee that is supposed to be overseeing progress—we are yet to see spades in the ground for too many of those projects.
	Last year’s autumn statement announced a £5.5 billion infrastructure package, but this is to be paid for by cuts to departmental spending and underspend, including capital underspends, and one third of the projects included
	in the package had been previously announced by the Government. Indeed, describing the 2011 infrastructure plan as
	“hot air, a complete fiction”,
	the director general of the British Chambers of Commerce urged the Government to develop
	“bold leadership and some creative ideas”
	and to “get a grip” on this issue in order to stimulate economic growth.
	The CBI’s assessment of the Government’s performance does not get any better, with its annual infrastructure survey last year finding that 73% of its members do not think that transport infrastructure will improve over the next five years and that two thirds believe that the UK’s energy and water infrastructure is unlikely to get any better. This has been damningly described by the CBI director general John Cridland as
	“a wake-up call that businesses in Britain are looking for action and we haven’t seen any yet.”
	Even the Deputy Prime Minister finally appeared to wake up to the importance of this issue—although a little late in the day—when he acknowledged last month that the coalition cut capital spending too deeply when it came into government. We were all desperately disappointed that the latest apology did not come via YouTube—the “I’m Sorry” infrastructure remix. We were offered this particular mea culpa via The House magazine, which he told:
	“I think we’ve all realised that you actually need, in order to foster a recovery, to try and mobilise as much public and private capital into infrastructure as possible.”
	Yes, that is what the Opposition have been saying all along.
	In their first three years, this Tory-led Government have spent £12.8 billion less in capital investment than would have been spent under the plans inherited from Labour. That is a fall of 8%. According to the Government’s Office for Budget Responsibility, the coalition will spend £7.3 billion less on capital investment over the course of this Parliament than was planned by Labour.
	This debate is not just about investment. Ensuring that infrastructure projects get off the ground and deliver jobs and growth requires the political will and determination to drive things through—something that is sadly and damagingly lacking under this Government. The economic situation in which we find ourselves requires urgent action from Government, such as that proposed in Labour’s five-point plan for jobs and growth, which would bring forward long-term infrastructure projects, as we did in the aftermath of the global financial crisis. That plan includes the construction of thousands of affordable homes.
	We need a comprehensive long-term plan to rebuild Britain’s infrastructure for the 21st century—a long-term framework that gives investors the confidence that they need to invest consistently and that will deliver real results for the UK economy. That is why my right hon. Friends the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Chancellor have asked Sir John Armitt, the chair of the Olympic Delivery Authority, to conduct a review into how long-term infrastructure decision making, planning, delivery and finance can all be improved.
	As this issue is of such national significance, a cross-party consensus is required to deliver what we need. We have seen what can be achieved when we reach a consensus and plan for the long term across Parliaments and across political divides. The Olympics showcased Britain for the great country and the one nation that it is, but that was Labour’s legacy. What will be this Government’s legacy? If they are not careful, it will be dither, delay, stifled economic growth and stagnation. It is time to get a grip. The Opposition motion calls on the Government to do just that, and I commend it to the House.

Sajid Javid: I am grateful for the opportunity to conclude this debate.
	I have listened with great interest to the 11 Back-Bench contributions in the Chamber this afternoon. This is clearly an issue about which many Members feel strongly. It is also an issue that Members on both sides of the House seem to agree on in many ways. Both sides want to see a UK with world-class infrastructure and both sides recognise the importance of improved infrastructure for the nation’s economic future.
	However, only one party ruined the UK economy after 13 years in government, hugely damaging the UK’s ability to invest in the very infrastructure that we all care about. It was the party that tabled the motion. That same party left the UK with the largest budget deficit in the G20. [Interruption.] Labour Members say that we should look forward. It is no surprise that they want the country to look forward, because they do not want us to remember their legacy, but the country must remember. They left a budget deficit higher than 11% of GDP. They borrowed £159 billion in their last year in government—£5,000 in each and every second of that final year.
	Had the previous Government not messed up the regulation of the financial sector, they would not have had to carry out the biggest banking bail-out the world has ever seen, with £65 billion being put into RBS and Lloyds alone. Imagine how much new infrastructure that money could have been invested in. As if that was not bad enough, let us not forget the decision to sell off the nation’s gold reserves at record low prices. Had they not done that, the country would have been £10 billion richer. One thing that we did not hear from a single Labour Member this afternoon was an apology for the damage that they did to this country.
	Despite that toxic legacy, this Government have restored economic confidence. We have slashed the record budget deficit by a quarter. We have restored economic credibility and opened Britain up for business again. That credibility has led to record low interest rates, with the Government’s 10-year funding costs having halved since 2010. Each of those steps has been crucial to creating an economic environment in which the Government can invest in infrastructure, and one in which investors feel their funds are secure.

Sheila Gilmore: Will the Minister explain to the House and the country why the OBR predictions at the time of the so-called emergency Budget and the comprehensive spending review have not happened, why growth has not happened, and why the deficit has not been reduced at the rate the Government originally promised?

Sajid Javid: I direct the hon. Lady to read the OBR report, which mentions a number of reasons, not least the eurozone crisis. She might like to read that report for herself.
	I should respond to the points hon. Members have raised in the debate. Many accusations were made by Opposition Members. They said that, had they won the election, they would have miraculously invested more. The reality is that, had they won the election, they would have continued borrowing recklessly, which would have led to much higher interest rates. They would probably have led this country into the hands of the International Monetary Fund once again, which seems to be their speciality.
	Let us look at Labour’s March 2010 Budget. It shows that the previous Government planned to cut capital spending by 6% compared with our latest plans. In fact, in nominal terms, they planned to cut capital spending by 22% between 2010 and 2014. My hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen) made a good point, which the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) dismissed. Let me read to her the words of the right hon. Member for South Shields (David Miliband). In July 2010, he said the previous Government would have halved the share of national income going into capital spending. That is the truth, and Labour Members want to deny it.
	Meanwhile, this Government have overseen an increase in total investment in infrastructure from £29 billion a year, which was the level between 2005 and 2010, to £33 billion a year between 2010 and 2012. In the autumn statement, the Chancellor unveiled a further £5.5 billion of investment, including £1.5 billion for the strategic road network.
	Hon. Members are aware that the vast majority of spending needs to come from the private sector. That is why we have taken measures to target and support investment—measures such as the UK guarantee scheme, which will provide up to £40 billion of support to critical infrastructure.

John Healey: In an answer last month on the guarantee scheme, the Financial Secretary told me:
	“No project has been guaranteed under the UK Guarantee Scheme at this stage.”—[Official Report, 18 January 2013; Vol. 556, c. 981W.]
	However, in the autumn statement, the Chancellor said:
	“I can today confirm a £1 billion loan and a guarantee to extend the Northern line to Battersea power station and support a new development on a similar scale to the Olympic park.”—[Official Report, 5 December 2012; Vol. 554, c. 876.]
	Does that not show the uncertainty and confusion at the heart of the Government’s infrastructure failures? Who is right: the Financial Secretary or the Chancellor?

Sajid Javid: The right hon. Gentleman rightly made a point earlier about the action the Government have taken to implement the guarantee scheme. Of the £40 billion of guarantees available, about £10 billion have pre-qualified but are not yet issued, and there has been an offer of a £1 billion guarantee for the Northern line extension project to Battersea. That is substantial progress since Royal Assent to the Infrastructure (Financial Assistance) Act 2012 in October 2012.
	The Government are working tirelessly to encourage further investment, not just from overseas, but from
	pension funds. However, the debate should not focus solely on the amount of money we secure for projects. We should also focus on how to ensure the best possible return on those investments—a point made well by my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Mrs Main). That is why the Government are running a cost review to reduce infrastructure costs by a target 15%, and why we have reviewed and reformed PF1 and launched PF2. The Government are investing wisely, collaboratively and efficiently.
	Some Labour Members would have us believe that our investment is resulting in no action. I found it strange to hear the criticism that our investment has resulted in no spades in the ground. As the Financial Secretary told us earlier, a number of projects are already up and running. For example, major flood risk infrastructure projects have been completed in Nottingham, Truro and Keswick, and four new major road projects and 16 local transport schemes are under construction.
	This is a Government with a long-term strategy for infrastructure. Our national infrastructure plan—the first time a Government have set out such a plan—identifies 550 projects with a value of more than £310 billion. It has seen us publish an investment pipeline that gives certainty to investors, which is absolutely key; prioritise projects through the creation of a top 40 list; and utilise a dedicated Cabinet committee to ensure infrastructure delivery. The Opposition motion alludes to Sir John Armitt’s review into long-term infrastructure. Given the important and valuable role he played in the Olympics, I am sure it will be an interesting read and I will look at his recommendations. I am also sure that his advice will be considered, balanced and politically neutral. I would be very surprised if it were influenced by the shadow Chancellor in any way.
	We have recently appointed our own Olympic expert to the role of Commercial Secretary. Lord Deighton is overseeing a review of Whitehall’s ability to deliver infrastructure, to increase commercial expertise across Government. We are enhancing the mandate of Infrastructure UK, increasing its capability to make sure that projects are delivered. Those are steps that show that this is a Government committed to investing in infrastructure projects and a Government committed to delivering infrastructure projects.
	Let me turn briefly to two points raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Halesowen and Rowley Regis (James Morris) and for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless). They talked about the importance of rail investment and alluded to making greater investment in regional aviation. They made powerful cases and that is something the Government will look at. My hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood asked whether I would be happy to meet him to discuss the matter further—I would be very pleased to do so.
	In conclusion, I thank all hon. Members for their contributions this afternoon. I am sure we all want to see improved infrastructure in our constituencies and in the UK as a whole. While the Opposition have no answers for the challenges our country faces, this Government are getting on with the job. I therefore urge Members to reject the Opposition’s motion and to back the Government’s amendment.

Question put (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the original words stand part of the Question.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 225, Noes 297.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the proposed words be there added.
	Question agreed to.
	The Deputy Speaker declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to (Standing Order No. 31(2)).
	Resolved,
	That this House notes that the previous administration’s final Budget planned to cut capital investment by 6 per cent more than this Government’s latest plans, in the period 2010 to 2014; further notes that this Government has increased capital plans by £20 billion
	at the Spending Review and at the last two Autumn Statements, by taking tough but necessary decisions to cut current spending, with a result that public investment as a share of GDP will be higher on average over this Parliament than it was under the previous administration; further notes that this Government announced £5.5 billion of extra infrastructure investment in the last Autumn Statement, including £1.5 billion for roads, £1 billion for new schools, £900 million for science and £1.8 billion for housing and local infrastructure; further notes that it has supported the largest investment in the railways since Victorian times under the High Level Output Specification; further notes that no national infrastructure plan existed under the previous administration whereas this Government has set out for the first time a multi-year long-term strategy for the UK’s infrastructure, with over 50 per cent of the Government’s top 40 projects and programmes due to be in construction, procurement or completed by the end of 2014-15; and believes that sweeping away red tape and developing new finance initiatives such as the UK Guarantees Scheme will also support up to £40 billion of extra important projects.

Business without Debate
	 — 
	DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Social Security

That the draft Social Security (Payments on Account of Benefit) Regulations 2013, which were laid before this House on 10 December 2012, be approved.—(Mr Swayne.)
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Social Security

That the draft Universal Credit (Transitional Provisions) Regulations 2013, which were laid before this House on 10 December 2012, be approved.—(Mr Swayne.)
	The Deputy Speaker’s opinion as to the decision of the Question being challenged, the Division was deferred until Wednesday 13 February (Standing Order No. 41A).
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Social Security

That the draft Universal Credit Regulations 2013, which were laid before this House on 10 December 2012, be approved.—(Mr Swayne.)
	Question agreed to.

European Union Documents

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 119(11)),

Space Policy

That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 16374/12, a Commission Communication on establishing appropriate relations between the European Union and the European Space Agency; and supports the Government’s aim to work with the European Commission and ESA to begin a period of discussion about the future relationship between the ESA and the EU in which it will seek to ensure that any Commission proposal for evolution of the relationship supports the growth of the UK space sector, avoids duplication of expertise and functions between the ESA and the EU, protects the UK’s ability to participate in certain space programmes on a voluntary basis, and fully analyses
	the implications for the EU budget and EU competence, so that a fully informed decision can be taken next year.
	—(Mr Swayne.)
	Question agreed to.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Ordered,
	That the motion in the name of Mr Andrew Lansley relating to the Electoral Commission shall be treated as if it related to an instrument subject to the provisions of Standing Order No. 118 (Delegated Legislation Committees) in respect of which notice has been given that the instrument be approved.—(Mr Swayne.)

Privileges

Ordered,
	That Annette Brooke be discharged from the Committee on Privileges and Sir Nick Harvey be added.—(Mr Randall.)

standards

Ordered,
	That Annette Brooke be discharged from the Committee on Standards and Sir Nick Harvey be added.—(Mr Randall.)

PETITION
	 — 
	Main Road Recreation Ground (Kinnerton)

Mark Tami: Over 400 residents of Kinnerton have signed this petition in favour of the non-development of a valuable green space. The campaign to protect the field has gone on for more than 20 years, and the issue needs to be resolved in the long term.
	The Petitioners
	believe that there is a real risk that unless the land is awarded Field in Trust status, designated as a village green or alternatively Flintshire County Council agree to a long-term lease of the land to the Community Council for recreational use beyond 2015, that the community will lose a valuable and much used recreational area in the heart of the village.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to secure protected status for Main Road Recreation Ground.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	Following is the full text of the petition.
	[The Petition of residents of Higher Kinnerton, Flintshire,
	Declares that earlier this year the Community Council nominated Main Road Recreation Ground to be protected under the Queen Elizabeth II Fields in Trust Challenge—a UK wide programme to celebrate the Diamond Jubilee and London Olympic Games by permanently protecting outdoor recreational spaces for future generations. However Flintshire County Council refused the nomination claiming the site has ‘long-term residential development potential’ which appears to contradict with Flintshire County Council’s own Unitary Development Plan which describes the field as ‘an important green space within the heart of Higher Kinnerton providing a green break within the built fabric of the village’.
	Further that Flintshire County Council have now rejected an application to register Main Road Recreation Ground as a new village green—a move which had been supported 
	by organisations including Campaign for the Protection of Rural Wales (CPRW) and national charity Play Wales; further that Alyn and Deeside MP Mark Tami and AM Carl Sargeant had also written to Flintshire County Council’s chief executive Colin Everett supporting the application for village green status and the move to retain this area of land for recreational use.
	Further that the Petitioners believe that there is a real risk that unless the land is awarded Field in Trust status, designated as a village green or alternatively Flintshire County Council agree to a long-term lease of the land to the Community Council for recreational use beyond 2015, that the community will lose a valuable and much used recreational area in the heart of the village.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to secure protected status for Main Road Recreation Ground.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
	[P001154]

COMMON AGRICULTURAL POLICY REFORM

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mr Swayne.)

Roger Williams: I draw hon. Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, particularly as regards agriculture and farming.
	I would like to thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for allowing time for today’s debate on common agricultural policy reform. It is important that the House is able to discuss these issues that will affect farmers across England and Wales—and Scotland, Northern Ireland and, indeed, the whole of Europe—for the seven years after 2014.
	Last week’s deal to reduce the overall EU budget by €58 billion will have a considerable impact on the direct payments to farmers and on the rural development budget that makes up the common agricultural policy, now said to be worth €373 billion over seven years. The funding for the CAP will be in the region of 13% less than the 2007 to 2013 deal. Relative reductions will be made to direct payments, falling from €283 billion to €277 billion, with rural development reduced from €91 billion to €85 billion. While I am pleased that the deal has been agreed on the €908 billion budget, it is important that these cuts are applied equally across the EU.
	I and farming representatives such as the National Farmers Union believe that these reforms are an excellent opportunity to simplify, reduce and eliminate competitive distortions within the common market, to continue the process towards market orientation and to encourage farmers to become more competitive. I must emphasise once again that these reductions should be equal across the single market or else distortions will disadvantage UK farmers. It is pleasing to hear that the capping proposal to limit direct payments to larger farms will be used on a voluntary member state basis.
	A number of issues need to be addressed. Under the current agreement, England and Wales—and, indeed, Scotland and Northern Ireland—receive less direct payment support than our main competitors in western Europe. This gap between us and France, Ireland, Germany, Denmark and the Netherlands needs to be narrowed, or at most kept at current levels, especially if the situation is made more difficult by Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs proposals to remove up to 20% of the direct payment that farmers now receive, especially at a time when other member states are looking to improve farmers’ direct payments through reverse transfers.

Glyn Davies: I need to draw attention to my own entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests; I think my interests are similar to those of my hon. Friend. Does he agree that the issue is not so much about a reduction in the level of support as about securing a level playing field, particularly in respect of the greening policy? On a number of issues, British farmers might well be seriously disadvantaged as compared with their European competitors unless we get that level playing field. That must underpin what we do.

Roger Williams: I agree. I am not arguing for an increase in the CAP budget; what I am arguing for is equality across the whole of Europe. At present, for instance, dairy farmers farming in the Netherlands receive twice as much support as those who farm in England.
	DEFRA’s attempts to cut payments unilaterally, were they to be realised, would hit our farmers far harder than the proposed EU budget cut. In that context, I want to raise a few regional concerns that have arisen following discussions with the Farmers Union of Wales.
	Although many of the draft CAP regulations and recently proposed amendments acknowledge regional administrations, others do not. Is the Minister confident that the final regulations will properly acknowledge devolved Administrations such as those in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland?
	The impact of greening measures on the regions was also raised with me by the FUW. Greening accounts for 30% of direct payments. Analysis by the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board suggests that Wales, Scotland and northern England would be worst hit by the European Commission’s crop rotation greening proposals. That impact is likely to be due to the particular climatic and topographical challenges faced by farmers in those areas, which, as the Minister will know, are limited in terms of what arable crops can be grown in them, and are therefore at an instant disadvantage in relation to other regions. There is a fear that the greening measures will be perceived as too prescriptive and therefore unhelpful.
	I should like the Government to make allowances for farmers in higher latitudinal areas, for example, to take into account the challenge of farming in a tougher environment. I should also like them to support amendments tabled by my Liberal Democrat colleague George Lyon MEP and agreed to by the EU’s Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, which will allow farms to be exempt from greening requirements if they undertake actions that reduce agriculture’s impact on the global environment.
	It will be difficult to ensure that the greening measures that generate 30% of direct payments will have an equal impact in countries whose climates and agricultural systems vary as much as Finland and Malta. I fear that DEFRA wants to impose one form of greening on English farmers, namely the ELS-light approach in pillar one. It is one thing to say that a farmer who participates in the entry level stewardship scheme should be exempt from greening, and another to say that the only way in which he can receive his greening payment is to participate in the scheme. We see DEFRA’s approach as an interesting addition to the Commission’s proposals, but only as an accompaniment, not as a replacement. Forcing farmers in England to take part in ELS management measures when, say, Scottish, Irish or French farmers have access to choice and the various “green by definition” derogations sounds very much like domestic gold-plating to me.
	I hope that the Government do not consider it necessary to use the new flexibility in the proposals to allow for voluntary modulation of funds in the region of 15% that can be made by member states between the two pillars. While it does represent a liberalisation of the voluntary modulation principle introduced for the UK and Portugal under the previous CAP regime, does the increased
	possible modulation not represent a threat that could undermine UK farmers’ ability to compete within a common market?

Tim Farron: Does my hon. Friend agree that, given the likely shrinkage in the overall size of the EU budget, a decision by the UK Government to reduce the amount of modulation would be one way of ensuring that livestock and dairy farmers in particular see no reduction in their single farm payments?

Roger Williams: I agree. UK farmers certainly need a level of direct payment to remain financially viable and to play their part in the activities in which the people of this country would like to see them play a part.

Jim Shannon: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on raising a matter that is worthy of a three-hour debate. Northern Ireland farmers have experienced a 52% reduction in their real incomes at a time when the supermarkets are not paying them the money that they need to recoup some of their losses. Does he agree that, while it is good that there has been a seven-year continuation of the CAP moneys until 2020, those moneys should have been set at a level that would help the farmer rather than penalising him?

Roger Williams: I agree. The direct payment protects the farmer from various things, including volatile commodity prices and poor and problematic weather conditions, which have a huge effect on profitability. Without the direct payment, many farmers would not be able to continue in business.
	I, along with organisations such as the Country Land and Business Association, fear that modulation of this kind could undermine the ability of UK farmers to compete. I note the findings of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee “Greening the CAP” report. It stated:
	“The competitiveness of UK farmers will be reduced if they are exposed to higher modulation rates than their European counterparts. We therefore recommend that Defra does not set modulation rates higher than other Member States that receive similar single farm payment rates.”
	In terms of rural development, or pillar two, the UK receives the lowest per hectare allocation of funds because of the rebate the Government receive from Europe. A further reduction could turn farmers away from all the good they are doing in developing wildlife under the existing pillar two. The Government must make sure that as much positive management for wildlife as possible continues as we approach the 2020 deadline for improvements in biodiversity. Pillar two has delivered real improvements for the environment; the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds receives £5 million from the CAP, for instance.
	For a number of agricultural sectors, direct payments make up the majority of farm income, yet under EU rules farmers cannot receive payments for undertaking environmental work. They can be paid compensation only for the losses and costs incurred as a result of that environmental work. I believe there should be a system that genuinely rewards farmers for undertaking environmental work, and I am sure the Minister agrees. A deal must be done under the Irish presidency, thereby
	allowing for a period of transition in which farmers can make informed business decisions before the policy takes effect.
	The British and European public have great expectations for CAP reform. They expect farmers across Europe to provide quality food and increase food security, and to increase exports within the EU and further afield. They also require our farmers to be sustainable and to deliver public goods such as biodiversity, landscaping, water purity and granting greater access to farmland. These two goals can be achieved only if agriculture is profitable and successful. Farmers cannot, however, be expected to commit their lives to such a role within the sector without receiving sufficient support and investment. It is therefore essential to have a single farm payment that is set at a level that allows farmers to remain profitable and deal with the challenges they face.
	Recently, the single farm payment accounted for 80% of the total profitability of English agriculture, and in this financial year it will probably account for even more. The profitability of English agriculture is therefore clearly closely linked to the income from the single farm payment.
	The challenges facing farmers vary widely. Globally, prices for commodities remain volatile, and the dairy industry has seen some of the lowest prices for milk in recent times. High input costs such as for fuel, fertiliser, feed and chemicals are hitting farmers across all sectors, too. We also face increasingly inconsistent weather, which has resulted in the lowest wheat yields since the 1980s, while dairy farmers have had to keep cattle indoors and revert to winter feeding early, all at extra cost. These effects are felt globally as well as here in the UK; the United States has experienced its worst drought in 56 years, for instance, leading to poor yields and crop abandonment in some areas.
	I also want to make the case for extra support for hill farmers. They find it difficult to compete with people farming more advantageous areas. The CAP does not give specific support for hill farming.

Mark Williams: I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. The point about hill farmers leads me back to one of his original questions about the voice of regional government and national Government in the final regulations. Is he satisfied that the voice of Wales—in particular Welsh hill farmers—is being acknowledged in those negotiations and discussions?

Roger Williams: My hon. Friend points to a significant problem and I am not convinced at the moment that the future of hill farmers in Wales, England and the other devolved nations is secure. Will the Minister say what negotiations are taking place on behalf of the hill farming community? I do not seek to maintain the absolute level for CAP expenditure and it is far more important that British farmers are treated fairly and equitably. We operate in a single market in Europe and whatever settlement is finally reached, the terms and conditions applied to our farmers—whether the transfer to pillar two or the greening rules—must not put us at a disadvantage with our major competitors.
	English farmers have already undergone substantial and radical reform through the full decoupling of direct support payments, the cutting of farm payments at national level, and the progressive move towards an area-based payments system.The combination of those policy decisions, all taken at national level by previous DEFRA Ministers, means that this year a dairy farmer in the Netherlands will receive a payment that is 91% higher than that received by an English dairy farmer. The reform should seek to narrow the gap in support levels compared with our competitors, and it certainly should not make it any worse.
	I thank the Minister for listening and appreciate the size of the challenge faced by him and his ministerial team.

David Heath: May I say how grateful I am to my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Roger Williams) for securing this debate, because it is extremely timely? We are about to enter probably the most intensive period of debate in Europe on common agricultural policy. There were doubts about whether we would have agreement on the overall EU budget, but that is now in place and was agreed last week. The Agriculture Committee in the European Parliament voted on its amendments last month, and I am optimistic that we will secure an agreement on CAP reform during the Irish presidency. My hon. Friend raised that point and it is important not least because we do not want our agricultural businesses and farmers to have a prolonged period of uncertainty. They need to know exactly where we are.
	My hon. Friend set out to some extent the broad parameters of last week’s deal in which the Prime Minister secured a reduction in the CAP of €55 billion—13% less than the current budget. We do not need to be apologetic that we have sought a reduction in the overall budget of the European Union, as that is consonant with what taxpayers and national Governments across the European Union are experiencing. We also do not need to be apologetic that it will have consequences for the size of the agriculture budget, as no sector can be entirely immune from the process. The key is to ensure that the available funds are used in the most effective way to support agriculture across the United Kingdom.
	Although my hon. Friend was concerned, I see the additional flexibility of the 50% potential transfer from the pillar one budget to pillar two as a key part of that support. He mentioned the importance of high-level environmental schemes, and I want to ensure that those continue, because they have enormous value not only for the United Kingdom but for our wider environmental responsibilities. I also believe that our rural programmes are of enormous value and want to ensure that they are still intact. My hon. Friend’s concern is whether the transfer will effectively move money out of farming and into another pot. I understand that and perhaps we need to define better our terms for pillar two and pillar one.
	For instance, the definition of greening measures is very important in determining whether they lie in pillar two or pillar one, and whether there is, in effect, a transfer of funding from pillar two to pillar one which
	compensates for money going in the other direction. I will go on to discuss greening in a moment, but if we had a process under which other member states were required to consider what they could do to introduce in their agricultural systems environmental support schemes such as those in this country, that would improve not only the comparative competitiveness of our industry, but the environment, and most people in this country would like to see that.
	What are the Government’s priorities? Of course, we want to negotiate a good deal for farmers, for taxpayers and for consumers. What about in the long run? I do not resile from the view—this is the Government’s clear policy—that we want a common agricultural policy that continues to orientate itself to the market, that increases the international competitiveness of EU agriculture, let alone our own, and that increases the capacity to deliver environmental outcomes. Ultimately, we want an efficient and responsive agricultural sector in the EU and globally, and we want the future CAP to help to achieve that. That is why it is really important that the CAP continues on the path of reform and that we reduce, in the long run, our reliance on direct subsidy.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire asked about the extent to which we involve the priorities of the devolved Administrations in what we argue for, and I can tell him that we involve them fundamentally. It is really important that we hear what every part of the UK agriculture has to say about CAP reform, which is why we devote a great deal of time, both at official and ministerial level, to listening to the devolved Administrations and securing, as far as we can, a common UK position, on the basis of which we then negotiate.

Eilidh Whiteford: I am reassured to hear the Minister say that he will continue to work closely with the Scottish Government on this issue. However, I wish to put on the record the fact that the Scottish Government’s top priority has been ensuring that a fair proportion of the allocation comes to Scottish farmers. The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire, who has led the debate so ably this afternoon, pointed out the disparities between the different beneficiaries of this policy; a level playing field just does not exist at the moment.

David Heath: However, there is of course a difference between the distribution per farm and the distribution per hectare. Scotland has a distorting factor, because there are very large holdings that are “lightly farmed”; these holdings sometimes fall within a definition that I know the Scottish Minister is keen to look at to see whether they are actively farmed at all. There are specific issues to address there.
	I spent the past two days in Scotland talking to Scottish farmers and to Scottish Ministers, and I was there last week. As I say, we do listen carefully, for instance on the issue relating to the highlands, the definition of permanent pasture and how heather is treated. We have now secured a workable definition, which includes heather. That is important for Scotland and for Scottish agriculture, and it was secured by the negotiations in which we took part. I assure hon. Members from all parts of the United Kingdom that we take that matter seriously and we continue to listen.
	Let me give another example. In Scotland, coupled payments are still a key part of the distribution mechanism, whereas they are not in the rest of the UK. Therefore, the fact that we can provide some cover within the national ceiling from, in effect, an English contribution to enable Scotland to persist with its schemes is important.

Eilidh Whiteford: rose—

David Heath: I have given way once to the hon. Lady, and as the debate was secured by my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire I really need to answer the points he raised.
	Let us examine some of the other issues. The first is greening, on which we still have a lot to negotiate. The one thing that all member states were agreed on was that Commissioner Ciolos’s initial thoughts were not the answer. They were far too prescriptive and far too inappropriate in many areas. They displayed a lack of recognition that hugely different farming procedures are used, even in various parts of this country, let alone in the wider European family. What we want is a continued orientation of the CAP towards rewarding farmers for the public goods they deliver, which includes environmental benefits and protecting and enhancing wildlife, but not in a form that is over-bureaucratic and over-demanding in implementation, which may result in a tick-box mentality that does not help the environment and certainly does not help farming.
	We believe that some of the proposals simply do not represent good value, whereas some of our existing agri-environmental schemes do. I hope everyone agrees that what we need is flexibility to allow local definition of environmental benefits and schemes that do not force people into inappropriate farming practices. I am hopeful that we will secure that degree of flexibility, but we should not take it for granted. The other thing we do not want is duplication, so that people are paid twice for doing precisely the same thing. There is a risk that the outcome of some of the European Parliament proposals will be farmers being paid once under pillar two and once under pillar one for doing exactly what they are doing now. I doubt our taxpayers would thank us for that. It is important that we reach a successful outcome.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire mentioned George Lyon, who is one of the beacons of common sense on the European Parliament Agriculture Committee. I have worked closely with him, and we certainly want to continue to do so in the future.
	Our concerns in relation to intervention in the market have been well rehearsed. We have been clear over the years about our desire to reduce the reliance on trade-distorting measures and the importance of the CAP sticking to that path of reform. That is where we part company with the European Parliament Agriculture Committee, because many of the amendments voted through there would move us backwards, away from market orientation, and increase budget pressures for old-style market support. There is a place for recognition of the need to support some farmers, especially hill farmers and those in less-favoured areas. I stress that and argue in favour of doing that, but when it comes to providing subsidy for European farmers to start growing tobacco again and get taxpayers’ money to do so, I draw the line, because that is clearly not in the interest of taxpayers or of the EU.

Roger Williams: The key issue is flexibility on modulation to allow some countries—people think the UK will be one of them—to move money from pillar one to pillar two, while other countries move money from pillar two to pillar one, thereby further disadvantaging UK farming.

David Heath: As I said, what we want is flexibility to find the right solutions for our farmers. At one point, my hon. Friend praised high-level agri-environmental schemes, and we want those to continue. We may need that flexibility to ensure that we can achieve that within our pillar two framework, but at the same time I want the level playing field with other countries that he seeks, so that they do some of the same things that we do, and do well, in their domestic agriculture. I am not convinced that they are doing that yet. The thrust of our argument is: yes, we want public money to support public good, but we do not want public money to support distortions of trade and agricultural production which result in a regression across the EU.
	I am clear that to achieve that we need flexibility not only in definitions, but in being able to move cash
	between headings. We need to make sure that we have an appropriate period of transition—it would be disastrous for British agriculture were we to move too fast and in too rigid a way to a solution that is not appropriate for many of our farmers. We need to make sure that the implementation period is sufficiently long to allow an orderly transition, so that we do not repeat the chaos of 2005 with the Rural Payments Agency—I am determined that we will not do that again. Most of all, we need to listen to what our agriculture industry needs, relate that to what our taxpayer needs in value for money, and make sure that we have prosperous and sustainable agriculture right across the UK in the future. That is what we are trying to achieve from CAP reform, and I believe it is possible to do so, but I do not underestimate the difficulties in reaching a successful conclusion.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.